' PERVEZ AHMAD, J.---The petitioners, who were plaintiffs before the trial Court in a suit for declaration have assailed the judgment dated 19-12-1995 of the Appellate Court by virtue of which the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision with regard to an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed vide judgment dated 7-9-1986.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners brought a suit for declaration with the assertion that the acquisition of land of the petitioners/plaintiffs was without jurisdiction and as such the award dated 28-2-1966 be declared as illegal. The matter was contested by the defendant. The trial Court framed the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment dated 13-10-1984. The petitioners filed on appeal before the Appellate Court from where the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision. The trial Court after receipt of the case by way of remand issued notices to the respondent but they absented themselves, hence they were proceeded ex parte on 18-6-1986 and accordingly the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 7-9-1986. The respondents with the background filed an application on 2-10-1986 under Order IX, rule 3, C.P.C. For setting aside the above said ex parte judgment and decree, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 13-2-1991. The respondents filed an appeal before the appellate Court from where the matter was remanded vide order dated 19-12-1995 to the trial Court for fresh decision on merits. The petitioners being aggrieved of the orders of the learned Appellate Court has filed the present revision petition.
3. As none has turned up on behalf of the respondents, hence they are proceeded against ex parte.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material made available before this Court.
' The material made available before this Court reveals that after the remand by the appellate Court on 12-11-1985 a notice was issued to the respondent at the address given in the plaint and a notice was also issued to the learned counsel for the respondents and the Clerk of the learned counsel for the respondents refused to accept it. With this background publication was effected against the respondents and even on account of non-appearance after publication the respondents were proceeded ex parte. Substituted service as laid down under Order V, rule 20, C.P.C. Is sufficient proof of service. It is settled principle of law that when there was sufficient material before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court instead of remanding the case should have decided it. In this behalf, I am fortified by the law laid by the apex Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Chowdhury and others v. Kamir Mondal and others (PLD 1965 SC 434). The respondents have failed to place any material on record justifying remand of the case by the Appellate Court. The above facts reveal that the orders of the appellate Court suffer from illegality and material irregularity and were not in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. In view of what has been said above, the instant revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated 19-12-1995 passed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 7-9-1986 is maintained.