' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---The petitioners have directed this civil revision against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration in respect of suit land fully described in Para No,1 of the civil revision and prayed that Mutations Nos.922, 928, 960, 1006, 1088 and 1096 sanctioned in favour of defendants are void and illegal on the ground that the petitioner purchased the suit land form Monda defendant No,1 and his brother Mollu vide a decree of Civil Judge dated 26-9-1973. He further maintained that on the basis of above said decree, Mutation No,998 dated 24-9-1974 was recorded by the revenue official but it was not sanctioned due to violation of Martial Law Regulation.
3. That the suit was contested by the defendants who filed their written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed issues and thereafter recording of oral as well as documentary evidence vide judgment and decree dated 4-10-1999 dismissed the suit.
4. That the plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 31-1-2004 by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha, hence this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the judgment of first appellate court is based upon conjectures and surmises which is deemed to fulfil the lacunas of the petitioners
(sic) case. Learned trial court discussed the evidence of the parties regarding all the issues, but learned first appellate court has not discussed any issue. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of suit land. The suit is badly barred by time. Therefore, civil revision be allowed, impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court be upheld.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for answering respondents has vehemently opposed this civil revision and has contended that the impugned judgment is in accordance with law. Valuable rights of respondents are involved and the controversy between the parties could only be resolved after the amendment of plaint and production of. Registered sale-deeds as pointed out by the learned first appellate court. Therefore, civil revision be dismissed.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. Perusal of record shows that the suit for declaration was filed by Muhammad Khan plaintiff on 1- 11-1999 which was dismissed by the learned trial court on 4-10-1999. The respondents/plaintiffs had challenged various mutations which were attested from 1974 to 1980 at various time. Prima facie, this suit was hit by limitation and thereafter vide judgment dated 31-1-2004, learned first appellate court on its own accord has directed the respondents/plaintiffs to amend the plaint and also challenge the registered deeds regarding sale of disputed property upon which the impugned Mutations No,922 Ex:P4 sanctioned in 1978, 928 Exh.P5 sanctioned in 1978 and 1006 Exh.P7 sanctioned in 1985.
9. The impugned judgment is not warranted under the law because the impugned judgment reflects as if the learned first appellate court is a party to the suit who has passed the impugned order without considering the period of. Limitation. No legal sanctity is attached to the impugned order The law has laid down certain criteria that an appellate/revisional court can remand a case in the following circumstances:--
(a) where there has been erroneous exclusion of evidence;
(b) where the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong party;
(c) where the-trial Court has misunderstood the case;
(d) where material issues have not been determined by the lower court;
(e) where the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was brought in the name of the wrong plaintiff or wrong defendant;
(f) where the suit was found to be bad for multifariousness;
(g) where the decision is based on inadmissible evidence and such an evidence is reversed;
(h) that relevant facts have not been taken into consideration;
(i) without parties consent to a remand;
(j) where amendment is allowed in the pleadings at an appellate stage;
(k) where plaint was wrongly rejected for non-payment of court-fee.
10. Resultantly, this civil revision is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned District Judge, Sargodha, to decide the appeal on the record available on the file expeditiously preferably within four months from the receipt of order of this court after affording adequate opportunities to the parties.
11. The parties are also directed to appear before learned District Judge, Sargodha, on 11-10-2010.