' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---Earlier on 4-10-2005, this petition was allowed ex parte against the private respondents. However, Mst. Nooran Bibi (respondent No,4) filed G.M. No 1351-C/2005 A praying that the ex parte judgment be set aside because she had never been served. This application was allowed on 19-1-2006 and as the judgment, dated 4-10-2005 was set aside.
2. Today, I have heard learned counsel for Mst. Nooran Bibi, who has argued that the Fard Taqseem which was filed by the Province and functionaries (respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8) along with their written statement was fabricated. He contended that both Courts below maintained the evidence and concurrently came to the conclusion that Nooran Bibi was part of the family whose head was (sic).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had pointed out earlier that the learned Appellate Court had not decided an application, filed by the petitioner praying that the Fard Taqseem be allowed to be produced as additional evidence. The ex parte judgment, dated 4-10-2005 was passed by the Court on the premise that the Fard Taqseem was an authentic document and therefore, should have been admitted in evidence by the Appellate Court. This was done in the absence of Nooran Bibi who as noted above, had not been served.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, where Mst. Nooran Bibi has entered appearance and her learned counsel has expressly taken objection to. The authenticity of the disputed Fard Taqseem, it will be proper if the appellate decree is set aside and the learned Appellate Court is directed to first decide the application for additional evidence, which had been submitted on behalf of the present petitioners.
5. In view of the above, the appellate decree, dated 11-10-2000 is set aside. The learned Appellate Court shall not decide the application filed by the petitioners under Order XLI, C.P.C. And thereafter decide the appeal afresh.
6. This appeal succeeds in the above terms. However, in view of the remand order passed, there is no 'order as to costs.
7. Since the litigation in this case commenced as far back as 1992, the learned Appellate Court shall, if its workload so permits, decide the appeal within six months from the date on which this order is produced before it.