IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment, dated 31-1-2006 passed by learned Single Judge Of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby civil revision filed by Sher Afzal and others, respondents/defendants has been allowed, judgments/ decrees dated 24- 4-1993 and 8-4-1997 of learned Civil Judge, and learned Additional District Judge-II, Peshawar, dismissing suit and accepting appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs, respectively, have been set aside and case has been remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh.
2. Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate for the petitioners/ plaintiffs contended with reference to provision of Order XLI, rule 25 of Civil Procedure Code and attempted to argue that as the evidence on record was sufficient to pronounce the judgment, there was no occasion to remand it for rewriting the judgment by trial Court; that learned Single Judge of the High Court could have decided the case on merits on the material on record as from the impugned judgment it does not appear that there was any deficiency in the evidence or the evidence was not sufficient to pronounce the judgment and in such circumstances the High Court instead of remanding case should have pronounced the judgment on merits in order to save the parties from unnecessary litigation.
3. Power to remand the case should not be exercised lightly but sufficient care should be taken in this regard and Court should examine the evidence and if it comes to the conclusion that it is not sufficient to A pronounce the judgment or decide the issues between the parties, it can remand the case or may itself record the evidence and decide it, as held by this Court in Fateh Ali v. Pir Muhammad and another 1975 SCM R 221, Sher Muhammad and others v. Jamadar Ghulam Ghous 1983 SCM R 133, Arshad Ameen v. Messrs Swiss Bakery and others 1993 SCM R 216 and Syed Abdul Hakim and others v. Ghulam Mohiuddin PLD 1994 SC 52. In the instant case, there was no sufficient material on record to decide the lis effectively and properly and do complete justice between the parties. In this regard, we consider it appropriate to reproduce para.5 of the impugned judgment which reads:- "What is the basis of entries made in the column of "Legaan", and how far they are supported by deeds, are the questions which unfortunately have not been attended to by either of the Courts below. No doubt, entries made in the rent column cannot override those made in the possessory column, all the same there is no harm to make an inquiry as to the origin of such entries and basis therefor. No finding one way or the other could be handed down without inquiring whether the deeds have any nexus with the entries made in the rent column. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to maintain the impugned judgments.
' For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the case is sent back to the learned trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law.. "
4. In this perspective of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner despite his best efforts could not point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence on record. We also do not find any infirmity legal or factual in the impugned judgment calling interference by this Court.
5. The petition is berift of merit. The same is dismissed and leave refused. As the case is pending since 1990, it is directed that the same be decided as expeditiously as possible not exceeding six months.