' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-12-2001 passed by Mr. Muhammad Chaudhry, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the civil revision are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that the respondents are owners in possession of the suit land since decades whereupon the petitioners-defendants have started to raise industrial/commercial construction illegally. It was further contended that the suit land was exchanged between the parties with their free will. According to the exchange deed, the rights of water for irrigation etc. Were surrendered in favour of each of the parties.
3. The civil litigation in this respect started between the parties and on 20-11-1973, Mr. Naveed-uz- Zafar, the then Civil Judge Lahore, passed an order, in result whereof, the mutations were sanctioned on the basis of exchange deed in favour of both the parties.
4. During the pendency of litigation between the parties, an application for the appointment of local commission for demarcation of suit property was filed and the learned trial Court appointed Tehsildar Lahore Cantt. As local commission for demarcation of Khasra No,1226 situated in the revenue estate of Fateh Garb, Lahore. In compliance whereof, the Revenue Officer conducted demarcation and submitted his report in favour of the present petitioners. The parties further filed an application on 17-3-1999 for the decision of the disputed property through arbitration. This was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31-3-1999 and a committee of arbitrators consisting of five members with Hafiz Waheed Bakhsh as its Chairman was constituted who after hearing the parties, announced award on 23-7-1999 and on 3-5-2001, the learned trial Court in the light of award dismissed the suit of the respondents. The respondents filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court before the learned District Judge, Lahore who accepted the appeal on 21-12-2005, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and remanded the case back to the learned trial Court with the direction to frame issue to the effect whether there was an agreement between the parties to refer the matter in dispute to the arbitrators and if so, the parties be provided with an opportunity to file their objections on the award. Hence this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court is against the law and facts. Further contends that the report of the local commission is in favour of the petitioners which was ignored by the learned first appellate Court, therefore, the civil revision be allowed, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate court be set aside and in view of section 56(11 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit of the respondents-plaintiffs be dismissed.
6. Despite notice, none on behalf of respondents has put appearance, therefore they are proceeded ex parte.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The learned first appellate Court has decided the issue of limitation and has overruled the objection of the petitioners while holding that the appeal is within period of limitation, so the issue on limitation could not be agitated at this stage. The perusal of the record further, reveals that after filing the written statements, the learned trial Court neither framed the issues nor recorded the statements of the parties and the matter was referred to the arbitrators. Thereafter, the respondents were not provided any opportunity to file objections on the award which was a right of the respondents, the arbitrators summoned the respondents at the time of pronouncement of the award. Therefore, the decree of the learned trial Court was not sustainable in the eye of law. The record further reveals that at the time of nomination of arbitrators, the statements of the parties were not recorded which was a mandatory provision in the appointment of arbitrators.
9. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgment and decree does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The learned first appellate Court has rightly remanded the case back to the learned trial Court to provide B opportunity to the parties before the decision because the valuable rights of the parties are involved in the matter. Hence, no interference is called for. This civil revision is without any substance, the same is dismissed.