' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Khakwani, Advocate has appeared and seeks to withdraw his Power of Attorney for want of instructions, as according to him, despite repeated efforts he could not establish contact with the respondents nor is in position to pay the costs imposed on them by this Court on 19-6-2003. Order accordingly.
2. The petitioners filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration to the effect that they being legal heirs of Fazal Din deceased were entitled to inherit the property fully described in the head note of the plaint, to the extent of 2/3 share from the inheritance of said Fazal Din and that mutation of inheritance sanctioned on 7-11-1948 excluding the petitioners from the inheritance of Fazal Din deceased and all subsequent transfers by respondents were void, ineffective upon their rights and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their hereditary rights and acting upon the erroneous entries of the Revenue Record to the extent of share of Fazal Din.
The said suit was contested by the respondent Nizam Din, etc. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence vide judgment dated 14-12-1995 decreed the suit of the petitioners in their favour, as prayed for. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, Nizam Din, etc. Filed appeal which was accepted and case was remanded to the trial Court on 28- 2-2000 by the learned Additional District Judge by holding as follows:-- "Without touching the merits and demerits of the judgment and decree under appeal, I found two major defects therein. One of these is that several issues have been taken up collectively and decided simultaneously, which is against the requirements of law as provided in Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C., and the other defect is that the respondents have made vague prayer in the plaint to the effect that the impugned Mutation No.6 dated 7-11-1948 and the subsequent all the mutations regarding the suit-land be set aside. It is practically impossible and against the law also. It was required that full particulars of the subsequent mutations be entered in the plaint and beneficiaries thereof be impleaded as defendants in the suit; only then an effective decree could be passed. Due to such omission the beneficiaries of the subsequent mutations have been condemned unheard, which is never allowed by the Honourable superior Courts and is against norms of justice.
' The impugned judgment and the decree dated 14-12-1995 is thus hereby set aside due to above observations and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for asking the respondents to include full particulars of the subsequent mutations required to be declared as illegal and void, and impleaded the beneficiaries thereof also as defendants in the plaint. Then further proceedings be taken as per requirements of law and the suit be decided within three months, as it is a very old case."
' This remand order has now been challenged by the petitioners through this Civil Revision on the plea that two grounds taken by the learned Additional District Judge for remanding the case to the trial Court, were not only factually incorrect but also not based on any legal foundation.
3. As mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, the respondents are proceeded against ex parte.
4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Appellate Court was not right in holding that as joint findings of the learned trial Court on Issues Nos.4, 11 and 14 were not proper, hence, the same were liable to be set aside, whereas, in fact all these issues were interconnected and could validly be decided jointly and by deciding as such, the learned trial Court had neither committed any illegality nor irregularity. To support his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of "Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan"
2000 SCM R 1647 and "Fazal Bibi v. Syed Jind Wadda Shah and others" 2005 M LD 1906. His further contention is that similarly, the learned Appellate Court was not right in holding that either the subsequent mutations were not incorporated in the plaint or full particulars of the subsequent purchasers were not given, hence the said alleged omission by the trial Court was fatal and not curable except with remand, is also not borne out from the record as all the mutations were specifically mentioned and challenged in the plaint and also the particulars of subsequent transferees were also mentioned in the plaint and from time to time several amended plaints were filed before the learned trial Court but the learned Appellate Court without pointing out or specifying any such omission, passed the impugned order of remand in a slipshod manner, not warranted by law. The learned counsel has also argued that it is now an established principle of law that where evidence and material on the record is sufficient for the decision of the case, remand of the case just for some technical irregularity that too without pointing out the same, was not approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case "Ashiq Ali and others v. Mst. Zamir Fatima and others" PLD 2004 SC 10 and "Anwar Ahmad v. Mst. Nafis Bano through Legal Heirs" 2005 SCM R 152.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the record with his. Assistance in the light of cited judgments.
6. Prima facie the reasons advanced by learned Additional District Judge for remanding the case to the learned trial Court are neither in line with the law declared by the superior Courts in the abovecited judgments, nor supported by record. It appears that the learned Additional District Judge, just to avoid exercise of scanning the evidence and recording his findings, may be against the findings of the learned trial Court, thought it easy and proper to remand the case to the trial Court, which exercise by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be approved with appreciation, being contrary to law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ashiq Ali and others v. Mst. Zamir Fatima and others" PLD 2004 SC 10 and "Anwar Ahmad v. Mst. Nafis Bano through Legal Heirs" 2005 SCM R 152.
7. The upshot of above discussion is that this petition succeeds and is allowed, resultantly the impugned order of remand dated 28-2-2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the appeal filed by the respondents shall be deemed pending before the learned Appellate Court who shall decide the same after notice to the parties and giving them proper hearing afresh strictly in accordance with law and in the light of evidence produced by the parties.
The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur on 5-12-2005 who will either retain the case on his own file or may entrust the same to any other Additional District Judge at Bahawalpur. As the matter relates to the year 1995, the learned Judge seized of the appeal, shall decide the same expeditiously but not later than 30-6-2006, with compliance report to the Additional Registrar of this Bench.