' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- Wazir Ahmad petitioner-defendant impugns the appellate order dated 24-1-2006, whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 11-6-2005 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh after impleading additional parties and after deciding an application for additional evidence, which was filed by Muhammad Hussain Khan respondent- plaintiff before the learned Appellate Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the dispute, which has been raised by the respondent-plaintiff assails consolidation proceedings, which have attained finality through the hierarchy of Revenue Court right upto Board of Revenue, which held in favour of the petitioner while dismissing a revision petition filed by the respondent-plaintiff vide order, dated 4-5-2002. He argued that the very jurisdiction of the learned Civil Courts has been barred by section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. After regular trial, the learned trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction in the matter.
3. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the remand order was also without jurisdiction. In any event, it was submitted, the learned Appellate Court had first to decide if it was vested with jurisdiction before passing the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff was not in a position to controvert the above submissions. It is clear that the question as to whether or not the Civil Courts have jurisdiction in the matter had to be decided by the learned Appellate Court. No such decision has, however, been made. Here it may be added that issue No,2 was specifically framed by the learned trial Court on the question of the Court's jurisdiction.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned remand order, dated 24-d-2006 is set aside.
The appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff shall stand restored and shall be decided afresh. Since both sides are represented, they are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on 2-i 1-2006.
6. This appeal is allowed in the above terms.