CH, IJAZ AHMAD, J.--The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the errect, that he is owner in possession of the suit property. The contents of the plaint further reveals that the plot in question was allotted to him whereupon, he has spent huge amount for construction and the respondent/defendant has no concern whatsoever who filed frivolous application against him . The respondent/defendant filed an appeal against the mutation No. 1087 before the Collector Nankana Sahib which was allowed vide order dated 19-5-1991. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff before the Civil Judge Nankana Sahib, being illegal, against facts, mala-fide, without authority, fraudulent, void, ineffective qua his rights. The respondent/defendant filed written statement, controverted the allegations leveled in the plaint and raised many preliminary objections. During the proceedings of the case, the parties agreed to appoint three arbitrators namely Rana Riasat Ali Patwari, Muhammad Sharif and Lashkar Ali as is evident from the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 18- 5-'1992. On 30-5-1992 award was submitted. The respondent/defendant filed objections before the learned trial Court against the award. The learned Trial Court accepted the objections of the Respondent/Defendant vide order dated 16-7-1992. The petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved filed revision petition before the learned Addl.District Judge concerned who upheld the order of the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 3-1-1993. The parties again got compromise on 27-10-1994 to settle the dispute through the arbitrators and to appoint Muhammad Hussain Patwari retired, Rehmat Ali and Muhammad lshaque as arbitrators who were appointed arbitrators according to the consent of the parties. The parties have also made the statements to the effect that whatever the decision of the arbitrators would be, should be abide by the parties. The arbitrators submitted the award before the trail Court on 18-1-1995. The learned Trial Court invited objections from the parties. The respondent/defendant raised objections before the trial Court that was an ex parte award and that he -has not heard and as such the arbitrators have committed misconduct. Copy of the award was also not supplied by the arbitrators to respondent/defendant. The learned Civil Judge 1st Class Nanakana Sahib dismissed the objections of the respondent/defendant and made the award as rule of the Court vide order dated 18-2-1995. The respondent/defendant being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge Nankana Sahib who accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff with costs throughout and also directed the SHO Police Station City Nankana Sahib to register a case against the petitioner/plaintiff under section 420/406/468/471 PPC immediately with an intimation to the learned Addl. District Judge, Nankana Sahib. The petitioner/ plaintiff aggrieved filed this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner/ plaintiff submits that judgments of both the Courts below are at variance. He further submits that the First Appellate Court erred in law to reverse the findings of the trial Court without adverting to the reasoning of the trial Court. He further urges that if the award in question made a rule of the Court by the trial Court on the account of the alleged objections of the respondent/ defendant not having been adjudicated upon in a judicial manner by the Trial Court in such an eventuality, the only course open to the learned Additional District Judge was to remand the case to the trial Court to attend to the objections of the respondent/defendant and adjudicate upon them in accordance with law after affording opportunities to the parties to lead evidence. He further urges that the First Appellate Court has no lawful authority to dismiss the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff or to make any observation, or form any opinion or make any surmises on the merits of the award or the case as no evidence had been led by the parties on the merits of the case or award nor any issue had been framed. He further urges that the First Appellate Court erred in law to direct the SHO to register the case against the petitioner/plaintiff. He further submits that the arbitrators are not bound to supply copy of the award to the respondent/defendant. He further urges that the First Appellate Court decided the case on surmises and conjectures as there was no material available on the record. He further urges that parties are duty bound to accept the award announced by the arbitrators and submit before the trial Court to make the rule of the Court.
3. The learned counsel of the respondent/defendant submits that petitioner/plaintiff committed the forgery and had been interpolated number of plot in question by cutting from 12/19 to 12/21 and thereafter mala fide got the mutation No. 1087 recorded in his favour. The petitioner/plaintiff concealed the material facts in the contents of the suit. He further urges that the learned First Appellate Court had rightly reversed the findings of the trial Court with cogent reasons. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court. He further urges that the learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any misreading or non reading of the evidence by the First Appellate Court and this Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the findings of the First Appellate Court while exercising powers under section 115 of CPC.
4. I have give my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The trial Court made the award dated 18-1- 1995 as rule of the Court vide order dated 8-2-1995 without adverting to the objections filed by the respondent/defendant in haste in a summary manner. The learned First Appellate Court was justified in law to set aside the order of the learned trial Court. The First Appellate Court acceded to its jurisdiction and dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff. It is the duty and obligation of the First Appellate Court to remand the case to the trial Court to decide the objections filed by the respondent/defendant before the trial Court in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to the parties. The judgment of the First Appellate Court is not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of The Chief Administrator Auqaf Punjab, and another vs. Mst. Nazir Fatima (PLJ 1997 Lah. 1674). The judgment of he First Appellate Court is in the violation of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case.
This concept of jurisdiction and illegality had been considered by the Honourable Supreme in Knawal Nain's case (PLD 1983 SC 53) to cover cases where decision on facts is based on no evidence or in admissible evidence or is so perverse with grave injustice would result therefrom.
The First Appellate Court has committed material illegality. This Court has ample jurisdiction to disturb the findings of fact in such situation as the principle laid down by the Honourable suprerne Court Shaukat Nawazs case (1988 SCM R 851).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is accepted with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court who is directed to decide the objections filed by the respondent/defendant in accordance the law in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Mst.Nazir Fatima's case supra, within six (6) months. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 17-10-2002, who is directed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law within six months till 17-4-2003.
Parties and their counsel are also directed to cooperate with the trial Court so that the matter may be concluded within the prescribed period. With these observations the revision petition is disposed of. .