This aPP404d4kted 4gainst the ,order of the Additional District Judge, RawalP1pAt ',Wed 5th Februarx,,!e0 by which 4.. Remanded the cAse;,:for fteskili(ec,istoti to the trig,Court with' cerialh 'directions as leontaTned in paya,graph 1.1 and may be reproduced below (1) That the person answering the interrogatories be':asted,,alid allowed an opportunity to verify answer to' the interfogateifitis on oath. IF (ii) To implead the applicants, namely Mirza Anwar Hussain, M Shoab Siddiqui, Aziz i,.Elthrand Khan ..M.i.Thammad Sharif Chaudhry, Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Siddique,- Razi-udDin, Ghulam Ahmad, Bashir Shah and Abdul Hameed as defendants in the suit and any other persons who may be interested in the relief claimed in the suit for or against it and apply immediately for it. (iii) To implead any other per ciin hic h the plaintiff may wish to implead as defendants for complete, final and effective adjudication `between the parties so as to. Avoid itny:-Inrther litigation.
2. This appeal witgadmitteTfOrititilivleating to consider whether the order of remand was justified when the evidence on record was sufficient to dispose of the entire appeal. '3.
All the parties in the present aPpealqVirii 'iedethitiihe order of the remand-.,passed by the :learned Add,itional. Divicit,414-ge, may be recalled and the case be decided on the existing evidence. The points on which the parties have agreed to the recall orthe femand Order may 'lie stated {{PAGE BLUR}} (i) That the learned Additional District Judge 'Anil decide the appeal on the basis of the evidence an record.` (ii) That the learned Additional District Judge shall himself comply with the directives as given in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. (iii) That the parties shall be at liberty to make any application for additional evidence or for any other matter which shall be decided in accordance with law.
4. In the present case the order of remand did not fall either under rule 23 or rule 25 of Order XLI, C. P. C. And could only be justified under rule 23-A which is to the following effect :- "23-A. Where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, and a retrial is considered necessary by the Appellate Court shall have the same powers as it has under rule 23."
The lower Appellate Court had not shown sufficient grounds for reversing the decree of the trial Court and the directives quoted above could even be complied by the lower Appellate Court. The arrangement arrived at between the parties is therefore in conformity with law and it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case to set aside the order of remand dated 5th February, 1980 and directions be given on the points agreed to between the parties. The order of remand dated 5th February, 1980 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the learned Additional District Judge shall decide the case on the existing evidence and shall he comply with the directives. In case any application is made for additional evidence or any other application the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The parties shall now appear before the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi who shall either decide the case himself or entrust it to any Additional District Judge for disposal in terms of the above directions.
5. Since the respondents have not contested this appeal, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.