1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, J.-An earlier petition bearing No, 595 of 1974, had been filed in the Court on the same cause of action. The petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 12th September, 1977, on the short ground that the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission, while sitting singly, could not dispose of revision applications under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation No,
115. The operative part of the order of the Division Bench was as follows :- 'The case will be remanded to the Federal Land Commission and the revision application which, was pending and was actually disposed of by the Chairman. Federal Land Commission, will now be disposed of by the Federal Land Commission in accordance with law."
2. ' The grievance in the present petition is that the Fe deral Land Commission without taking any proceedings was seeking to take action for resumption of lands of the petitioner., Since allegation has not been made that the lands had actually been resumed we called for the comments from the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sanghar, respondent No, 3, who vide 'a letter dated 29th ,October, 1978 has communicated to this Court that no action has been taken in this case or in several other cases of this nature and further orders were awaited from the Federal Land Commission in such regard. However, he has also stated in his communication that by Ordinance XXIX of 1978 all cases that had been decided by the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission while sitting singly would be deemed to have been validly decided. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has,- however, produced another letter from the Colonization Officer, Hyderabad, dated 8th November, 1978, stating that disposal of the resumed land was standing over by reason of the stay granted by this Court in the earlier petition. Namely Constitutional Petition No, 595 of 1974. The petitioner has been asked whether such stay had been vacated. This Metter purports to show that the Colonization Officer had 'expressed an intention of early disposal of the resumed. Land. However, no final order has yet been passed.
3. ' A number of petitions on identical facts have been filed in this Court and are pending. The grievance in each one of these petitions is that after an order of remand by this Court, the Federal Land Commission or its functionaries by reason of the provisions of Ordinance XXIX of 1978 have come to believe that nothing more remains to be done except to resume the land which was held to be liable for resumption by virtue of the order of Chairman of the Federal Lind Commission. It seems that the functionaries of the Federal Land Commission are labouring under a wrong impression and we have thought it proper to interpret the earlier order of the Division. Bench which remanded the case.
4. ' The effect of order of remand could properly be appreciated by reference to Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rules 23 and 25 of the said Orders are relevant. While one out of the rules relate to remand of a case as a whole, the other contemplates remand on the ground of failure of the trial Court to frame and try an issue. On a comparison of the two provisions it would appear that in a case where a decree is reversed in appeal the Appellate Court may remand the case with a direction for trial of "issue or issues". In such cases any further evidence could be adduced in the case itself and the trial Court would have full power of consideting the entire case afresh. Under rule 25 the Appellate Court has power of framing an issue and referring the same for trial and the trial Court would after recording evidence on such issue return the case to the appellate Court. The question in the present case 'is whether the order of remand amounted to remitting of the entire case for hearing. In the case of Partab Singh v. Mst. Par tapi and another (1) a Single Judge of the Lahore High Conn had remanded the case for further enquiry by the lower appellate Court. Such lower appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court for recording evidence. An objection was taken before the Lahore High Court and the same was rejected by stating as follows :- "The objection is highly technical and it was certainly net the intention of this Court, while issuing the remand order, that the District Judge should be precluded from directing the first Court to record any additional evidence if necessary."
5. ' In an earlier case from the Punjab Chief Court viz. Lahore Bank Limited v. Lakhi Ram (2) a Division Bench considered the provisions of Order XLI, rule 25, C. P. C. And distinguished the same from the provisions contained under Order XLI. Rule 23, C. P. C. The learned Judges considered. The .
6. Combined effect of both the provisions and expressed as follows :.- "We do not at present decide whether rule 23 is applicable to a _ remand under rule.25 but, admitting for the present, that it does {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) R-19.18 Lab. 342 (2) 19 I C 97Q {{FOOT NOTE}} apply, it is clear that this Court did not direct, that additional evidence should be taken by any other subordinate Court, but merely remanded the case to the Divisional Judge himself for enquiry and report; and in accordance with the cleat wording of Rule 25 that Court itself has to try the issue and to record finding thereon, after taking the evidence produced by the parties."
7. ' In this case reliance was placed on two earlier cases, namely Sabri v. Ganeshi (1) and Ali Sher Khan v. Ahmedullah Khan (2). In both these cases the order of remand was one under. Order XLI, rule 25, C. P. C. And the direction to the lower appellate Court was to give findings on certain issues.
8. In yet another case which is also a Division Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court viz. The case of Lala Singh v. Ram La! (3) some issues were remanded by the Court of second appeal to the lower appellate Court for trial. The lower appellate Court appointed a Commissioner for the examination Of witnesses and an objection was taken on the ground that the procedure adopted by the lower appellate Court was in violation of the provisions of Order XLI, rule 28, C. P. C. In pressing this objection reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of Lahore Bank Limited v.
9. Lakhi Ram, Sabri v. Ganeshi- and Ali Sher Khan v. Ahmedullah Khan. The learned Judges relied on a case of the Sind Chief COUrt viz. Moti Singh v. Sobho Mal (4) The following passage from the Sind Chief Court judgment was quoted with an approval :- "When the issues are remanded by the Coiirt of second appeal to the lower appellate Court for trial it seems to us that the lower appellate Court resumes its functions as the Court of first appeal and though it is the only Court which can record a finding on the issues remanded yet it may under rule 28 require additional evidence to be taken before the original Court."
10. ' On a consideration of the case-law the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court adopted the reasons advanced in the Sind Chief Court Judgment and held that although a case had been remanded to the Court of first appeal, evidence could be recorded.
11. On a consideration of this aspect of the case we are left in no doubt that the remand of a case for disposal on merits re-opens the entire case before the statutory functionaries and they are under no fetters. In cases when an appeal is remanded for determination of some issues to the lower appellate Court, even then further action by such Court is not barred. In the present case, the entire matter had been remanded and the argument is available with greater force. It is in that context that a distinction needs to be drawn between the provisions of Order XLI _rule 23 and Order XLI, rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But in a case which is remitted with a direction for disposal the statutory functionary has full power and are under a duty to deal with the case on. Its merits.
12. ' The Dictionary meaning of the word "remand" is to send back a case to the same Court out of which it came, for purpose of having some action on it there. Reference may be made to Black's Law Dictionary (IV Edition) at Page 1457. In the present case the Division Bench had {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 14 All. 28 (2) 29 All. 660
(3) AIR 1925 Lah. 39 (4) 32 I C 634 {{FOOT NOTE}} ordered disposal of the case according to law and the plain meaning Of the words is to decide it in a manner in consonance with the law i. e. By adverting to the merits of the case and in accordance with law. It cannot be overlooked that the petitioners had raised several contentions before the Division Bench.
13. ' As far as the question of Chairman, Federal Land Commission being a properly constituted authority under paragraph 29 of M. L. R. No, 115 is concerned, the matter may perhaps rest as the functionaries of the Federal Land Commission are concerned. But, in so far as the case was remanded for disposal, the matter stands open for rehearing and redetermination of all the issues.
14. The High Court by its earlier order did not advert to any of the merits in the contentions raised in the petition. Clearly, therefore, it is the function of the authorities constituted under the Federal Land Commission to reconsider the matter on merits.
15. ' With the above observations we dismiss this petition in limine as at present no cause of action has accrued as land is not yet resumed. _