MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 13-8-2001 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents.
They claimed to be the owner of the land and built up property, mentioned in para.1 of the plaint.
The respondent No.3 issued a notification on 11-7-1964 under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 and the properties mentioned in para.3 of the plaint were taken over as per details provided in the plaint. The grievance of the petitioners was that the respondents Nos.3 and 4 are interfering with the property of the petitioners which is beyond the area mentioned in the said notification and its implementation in the Revenue Record. The respondents Nos.3 and 4 in their written statements while questioning the jurisdiction of the civil Court denied the said allegations.
Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 18-3-2004. Against the said judgment, the contesting officials respondents as also the petitioners filed first appeals. These came up before learned District Judge, Vehari, on 12-4-2005.
With the agreement of the parties, the learned District Judge accepted all the appeals and remanded the suits to the learned trial Court with the direction that a Revenue Officer be appointed as a Local Commissioner and be directed to file a report and after the disposal of objections, if any, the matter be decided afresh. This order was not questioned by any of the parties. They put in appearance before the learned trial Court. Vide judgment and decree, dated 2- 7-2005, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the petitioners. The contesting respondents filed a first appeal which was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, on 3-3-2006 holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the remand order passed by the learned District Judge with agreement of all the parties and thereafter submission to the jurisdiction of the trial Court would estop the respondents from questioning the jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge with reference to the judgment in the case of Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab v. Allah Ditta and another 1990 CLC 821.
3. I have gone through the record. Now I have already reproduced above the material contents of the respective pleadings of the parties. No challenge whatsoever was thrown by the petitioners to the notification issued by the respondent No.3 under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. In fact, parties accused each other of encroachment on the lands respectively vesting in them. It was to resolve this controversy that the learned District Judge had remanded the case with consent of all the parties on 12-4-2005.
4. I find that a Local Commissioner was appointed who did file his report. However, thereafter as would be evident from the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 2-7-2005 the directives contained in the remand order were not followed and in a slipshod manner the suit was decreed.
The learned Additional District Judge got rid of the matter with reference to section 21 of the said Ordinance of 1979 and proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
5. To my mind both the learned Courts below have acted with material irregularity in the exercise of their respective jurisdiction by failing to take note of the directives issued by the learned District Judge in the said remand order and to decide the matter accordingly. The civil revision accordingly is allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. The result would be that the suit shall be deemed to be pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari, before whom the parties shall appear on 30-5-2006. The learned Senior Civil Judge shall then proceed further in the matter in strict accordance with the directives contained in remand order dated 12=4-2005 of the learned District Judge, Vehari and proceed to decide the suit afresh. No orders as to costs.
6. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari.