AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this appeal the appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment dated 8-4-2010 passed by, the learned Civil Judge fst Class, Multan, whereby the suit for preemption filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed. The Cross Objection No,3 of 2013 has also been filed by respondents/defendants praying for reversion of the findings on issues Nos.2 and 9.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the evidence produced by the parties.
3. During the scrutiny of record it transpired that the learned trial. Court has committed material irregularities while recording of evidence. The statement of plaintiff was recorded as PW-1. In his examination-inchief the alleged six notices of Talb-e-Ishhad were got exhibited as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 and when statement of Irshad Ahmad Postman was recorded as PW-6, in his examination-in-chief it is recorded that on 9-7-2005 when he was posted in General Post Office, he received Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 registered letters for further delivery, whereas Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 are the notices and in the record registered envelopes are available but the same have not been endorsed with exhibit number. Though the statement of PW-6 shows the exhibition of these documents. Same is the position of statement of PW5/Postal Clerk, who stated that on 9-7-2005 when he was posted as Clerk in District Court the receipts of registry bearing Nos.537 to 542 Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-12 were issued by him. In the record all these receipts are available but the same have not been endorsed with exhibit number. No mark of exhibition is available on these receipts. In this view of the matter, material irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Court while recording the evidence and the Court while deciding the suit has referred these documents as exhibited one despite the fact that no mark of exhibit is available on the envelopes of registered letters allegedly sent to the defendants as well as the receipts of post office issued for registered letters This defect is A fatal, therefore, the learned trial Court ignoring this defect has decided the case by referring those documents as exhibits, which actually does not contain exhibit mark. In these circumstances, we accept this appeal as well as Cross Objection No,3 of 2013 filed by the respondents defendants and remand the matter to the learned trial Court with a direction, first to cure this defect and then to decide the suit afresh, as valuable rights of the parties are involved in the lis. We do not want to discuss the oral as well as documentary evidence so that it may not prejudice the case of any party. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 20-4-2015 and the learned trial Court is directed to first cure the defect in the evidence noted supra and then to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law.