' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. Seeks to assail an order of the Additional District Judge, Kasur dated 16-5-2000. Through that order learned Court of first appeal set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 10-10-1998 as also the award dated 11-10-1994 which was made rule of the Court by way of judgment and decree assailed.
2. The facts in this case are not in disputed. Admittedly the legal heirs of one' Muhammad Ismail entered into an agreement to effect partition of the property A left by the deceased. The nominated arbitrators started the proceedings and finally recorded an award on 11-10-1994.
3. The present petitioners filed an application under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for filing of the award and to make the same as rule of the Court. That application was resisted and on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed issues on 26-3-1995 and after recording evidence proceeded to allow the application on 10-10-1998 by making the impugned award a rule of the Court subject to payment of Rs,52,500 as found by the arbitrators in Para. Nos. 3 and 4 of the award.
4. Mst. Shakila Fatima and Mst. Irshad Bibi respondents assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10-10-1998 with partial success. As noted earlier the learned Additional District Judge Kasur remanded the matter to the trial Court requiring it to ask the arbitrators to determine the legal share of every heir of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for Mst. Irshad Bibi, respondent No,2 made a statement before this Court that she has already received her legal share from the property of the deceased and, therefore, she does not contest the civil revision. It means that only Mst. Shakila Fatima is still contesting the impugned order.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent is right in stating that the remand order of the Court of first appeal is totally unjustified. He states and I will agree that the arbitrators were appointed for partition of the property qua Mst. Shakila Fatima as one of the legal heirs of the deceased. He is also correct in pointing out that even the arbitrators were aware of the fact that they were appointed to decide the issue of partition of the property of the deceased both movable as well as immovable taking Mst. Shakila Fatima the only contesting respondent as one party and the present petitioners as the other party. It is also evident that Mst.
Shakila Fatima did not contest the award on the ground that her legal share had not been determined. As far the rest of the respondents, now petitioners, they never made any objection against the award on the ground on which the learned Court of first appeal remanded the matter.
7. In a number of cases this Court has observed that remands should not be made in light vein. The reason simply been that remand of a matter to the trial Court without any substantial reason frustrates whole of the process which generally spreads over years.
8. As noted earlier the impugned order was recorded for the reason which was not at all a case of the respondents, now petitioners, as they were petitioners before the trial Court making a prayer for making award as rule of the Court. In absence of any grievance on the part of the second party to the agreement to arbitrate as well as the award, to set aside the judgment and decree and its remand to the 'trial Court thus, appears unjustified. In doing so the learned Court of first appeal exceeded its jurisdiction.
9. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Resultantly the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10-10-1998 making the award dated 11-10-1994 a rule of Court shall stand restored.