JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- Abdul Ghaffar petitioner/ plaintiff impugns the appellate decree dated 19-9-2000 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 30-7-1997 was set aside and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision after recording evidence on two additional issues which were framed by the learned Appellate Court.
2. The facts of this case are straightforward. The property in dispute is Plot No.620/K, Gulistan Colony, Faisalabad. This plot was allotted to Muhammad Ashraf, respondent/defendant No.2, through balloting conduced by Faisalabad Development Authority, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as F.D.A.), on 12-1-1977. It is not in dispute that the allotment of the disputed plot was made in favour of Muhammad Ashraf, respondent/defendant No.2. Thereafter the petitioner purchased the same from the said respondent on 12-2-1987.
3. After the allotment possession was also delivered to Muhammad Ashraf respondent/defendant on 12-2-1977 and an agreement to sell was executed in his favour and registered with the Sub- Registrar, Faisalabad. However, more than eight years later on 15-12-1987 the allotment made in favour of' Muhammad Ashraf was cancelled.
4. The petitioner filed a suit to challenge the cancellation. His case was that he had purchased the plot in good faith, for valuable consideration without notice of any defect in the title of respondent/ defendant No.2. The defence set up by F.D.A., respondent No.1, was that the disputed plot was obtained by respondent No.2 fraudulently by way of double allotment and it is for this reason that the same was cancelled. This may be correct. However, what is of relevance is that even if Muhammad Ashraf respondent/defendant had obtained an agreement in his favour fraudulently, the said agreement was not void ab initio. At best F.D.A. Could assert that the same was avoidable.
5. It is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner/plaintiff acquired the disputed plot during the currency of the aforesaid agreement and prior to the cancellation of the allotment in favour of Muhammad Ashraf. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record that the petitioner and Muhammad Ashraf were in collusion with each other. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner validly acquired his interest in the suit property prior to the cancellation order, dated 15-12-1987. The petitioner's right, therefore, could not be defeated by any determination made by F.D.A. That Muhammad Ashraf had obtained double allotment fraudulently or by concealing facts.
6. In view of the above discussion, I find that it was not necessary or appropriate for the Appellate Court to frame additional issues and to remand the matter to the learned trial Court. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. As a result, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 30- 7-1997 is affirmed.