' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 2-1-1984 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that "Ahmaan son of Hassan" was the father of the petitioner while "Rehman son of Dadoo" was the father of the respondents. They were co-owners in a joint holding. The fathers of the respondents sold 12 kanals of land vide Mutation No,104 attested on 26-2-1918, in the column of possession. This mutation was incorporated in the Revenue Record and the entries were correctly made till 1924-25. However, while preparing Jamabandi for the year, 1928-29 instead of father of the respondents, the father of the petitioner was mentioned as a vendor in the said column. The petitioner remained in possession after the death of his father as well as his mother and did not know about the said illegal entry. In the course of consolidation, on the basis of the said entries a shortfall occurred in the ownership of the petitioner and the suit-land mentioned in the plaint measuring 12 kanals was wrongly allocated to the respondents. With these averments, he sought a declaration that he is the owner of the said land. A decree for possession or in the alternative for joint possession was sought. In the written statement, it was objected that the suit is barred by time and that the consolidation proceedings cannot be questioned. It was denied that the father of the respondents has sold any land. It was further objected that apart from the petitioner, the children of his sister Mst. Gullan are also present. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Whether the plaint merits rejection in its present form? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to file the present suit? OPD
(3) Whether the plaint is fixed with proper amount of court-fee? OPP.
(4) Whether the predecessor of the defendant sold away any part of portion of his own holdings?
OPP
(5) If issue No,4 is proved, whether the sale was recorded in the Revenue Record as if has been sold from the holdings of predecessor of the plaintiff? OPP.
(6) If issue No,5 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled for adjustment of the sold land after consolidation proceedings? OPP.
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the disputed land? OPP.
(8) Whether the defendant is entitled for special costs? OPD.
(9) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree, dated 9-10-1988 the suit was dismissed. I may note here that issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were answered in favor of the petitioner.
Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were not pressed while under issue No,3 it was held that proper court-fee has been paid. Issue No,8 was also answered against the respondents. Under issue No,7 it was found that since the petitioner is only a co-sharer, he is not entitled to physical possession of the land. A first appeal was filed by the petitioner. Vide order, dated 10-6-1989 the parties agreed before a learned ADJ that findings of the learned trial Court be set aside on issues Nos. .7 to 9 while findings on the remaining issues are maintained. Following additional issue was framed as issue No,8-A:-- "8-A. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OP-Parties."
' The case was remanded for decision on the said issue. After the remand, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 17-12-1992. A first appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by a learned ADJ-I, Mandi Bahaud Din, on 22-6-1995. Now I may note here that the learned ADJ upheld the findings on all the issues. He, however, proceeded to hold that the suit was barred by time and with this finding, he reversed the findings on issue No,7 and consequently on issue No,9.
2. The petitioner is represented by Khan Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate, while the respondents have been served and are represented by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Chadhar, Advocate, whose name has been duly published in the cause list for today. Whereas no one has turned up for the respondents despite repeated calls, an adjournment is being sought on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case is pending since the last 10 years and having examined the records, I am not inclined to grant any adjournment. The respondents are also proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. As noted by me above, issues No,4, 5 and 6 pertaining to the merits of the case were decided vide judgment, dated 9-10-1988 in favor of the petitioner. These findings were not questioned rather conceded before the learned ADJ who remanded the case vide order, dated 10-6-1989 for re-decision on issues Nos.7 to 9 and additional issue No,8-A. All the issues were found in favor of the petitioner. The learned ADJ. M.B. Din, vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 22-6-1995 upheld the findings of the learned trial Court on all issues but proceeded to hold the suit to be barred by time. The learned ADJ has completely omitted from consideration the remand order, dated 10-6-1989 which governs the proceedings of the learned trial Court and had attained finality by agreement of the parties. Needless to state that at no stage, the respondents pressed the objection taken by them in their written statement as to the suit being barred by time. They did not claim any issue and ultimately the case was remanded with agreement of the parties clearly defining the parameters of further proceedings before the learned trial Court who conducted the same accordingly and gave a decision. Be that as it may, one wonders as to under which provisions of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, the suit has been found to be barred by time. The learned ADJ has accepted the version of the petitioner that he came to know about the entries 3/4 years back to filing of the suit. He has referred to Exh.P.4 to observe that the respondents were in possession since the last more than 12 years. I have examined the said document and I find that the learned ADJ has completely failed to read the same. The names of none of the respondents exist in the column of possession. On the other hand, names of petitioner and his mother Mst. Rehmoo are shown as vendors while the vendees are shown to be in possession. The case of the petitioner as finally found to be fully proved was that this sale was, in fact, made by the father of the respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner and his mother are duly recorded as co-sharers in the column of ownership. Now what has happened is that on the basis of the said incorrect entry, the petitioner lost 12 kanals of land in the course of consolidation.
4. The learned ADJ has then proceeded to state that this being a consolidation matter, civil Court would not be having any jurisdiction. Again, it may be stated that this objection was never raised or pressed. Be that as it may, it is also apparent on the face of the record that a pure question of title was involved and the civil Court had all the jurisdiction C to decide the same.
5. I do find that the learned ADJ-I, M.B. Din, has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgment and decree, dated 22-6-1995. The civil revision accordingly is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree, dated 22-6-1995 of learned ADJ-I, M.B. Din, is set aside while the one passed by the learned trial Court on 17-12-1992 is restored. No orders as to costs.