CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.---The precise facts of the case are that respondent No.1 and the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.2 were allotted land measuring 22 acres 7 kanals and 19 marlas, in Chak No.501, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang in equal shares under Tube-well Sinking Scheme, who entered into an agreement to sell dated 1.12.1976 with. Respondent No.3 for the purchase of suit land. Respondent No.3 instituted a civil suit for declaration regarding the said land, which was decreed in his favour on the basis of conceding statements vide order and decree dated 18.2.1981. Thereafter, Rashida Begum widow of Mohammad Sharif and her children filed a suit for specific performance against respondents Nos.1 to 3 before the Civil Court, Shorkot alleging therein that respondents Nos.1 and 2 through agreement to sell dated 22.2.1977 had agreed to sell half share of the above referred disputed property. Rashida Begum also filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1981, earlier passed in favour of respondent No.3 on the ground that the same was procured while playing fraud and misrepresentation. The learned Civil Judge, Shorkot after conducting full- fledged trial vide judgment dated 28.11.1987 dismissed the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereas, the above referred suit was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.1988 and the revision petition filed by Rashida Begum against judgment dated 28.11.1987 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.12.1988. Thereafter, the application for its restoration was also dismissed vide order dated 16.1.1990, which was assailed by Rashida Begum by filing a writ petition before this Court, whereas, appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1988, by virtue of which, Civil Court dismissed the suit filed by Rashida Begum was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Shorkot vide judgment and decree dated 29.6.1988, which was further assailed by said Rashida Begum by filing a civil revision before this Court.
2. The above said civil revision as well as writ petition filed by said Rashida Begum was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.4.1993. Being aggrieved, Rashida Begum filed Civil Appeals Nos.327/1995 and 328/1995 before the apex Court against the judgment passed by this Court in civil revision as well as writ petition and the same were dismissed vide judgment dated 11.4.2002.
Para No.14 of the said judgment is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:-- 'Civil Appeal No.328/1995 is also devoid of substance because appellants have not only failed to prove that the consent decree in favour of Mst. Jamila Begum was the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation, but they also have no cause of action to assail the same having been non suited in the main case."
' Thereafter, the said land changed hands and the petitioners also became owners of certain portion of the said land, where some construction was also raised by him. On 5.6.2007, Mohammad Yousaf respondent No.1 and the legal heirs of Hadayat filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against respondents Nos.3 to 6 as well as petitioners, while challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1981, which was contested by the petitioners. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26.7.2008 accepted the application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1981. The same was assailed by the petitioners by filing a revision petition before the learned lower revisional court, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2009, hence the instant writ petition.
3. At the very outset of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the learned lower revisional court while rendering the impugned judgment failed to apply independent judicious mind, but the findings of the learned trial court in verbatim were reproduced in its judgment. For instance, he has referred to para 9 of the judgment of learned trial court dated 26.7.2008 which was reproduced in verbatim by the learned lower revisional court, in para No.14 of the impugned judgment dated 25.4.2009. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, both the paras have been read over and the same are found to be identical, which fully supports the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that jurisdiction vested in the revisional court was not properly exercised in the judicious manner, which practice cannot be appreciated. The learned counsel for the respondents has remained unable to satisfy this court that how the judgment passed by the learned revisional court can be maintained.
4. It is the duty and the obligation of the superior courts to decide the controversy between the parties after application of judicious mind. Any superior court while hearing the appeal or revision A has to decide the same after the application of independent mind and mere reproduction of the findings of learned trial court to concur therewith while dismissing the revision is not found to be in consonance with the law laid down by the apex court in the case reported as "Punjab Industrial Development Board v. United Sugar Mills Limited" (2007 SCM R 1394), wherein on having been confronted with such situation, the matter was again remanded to the same court for decision afresh after application of - judicious and independent mind on the basis of the material available on the record.
5. Keeping in view the above discussion, I am left with no other option except to remand the civil revision filed by the petitioners to the learned lower revisional court for decision afresh and I have intentionally avoided to dilate upon merits of the case lest the same should prejudice the case of either party before the learned lower revisional court. This writ petition is accepted, the impugned judgment passed by the learned lower revisional court is set aside and the revision petition filed by the petitioners will be deemed to be pending before the learned lower revisional court, which will decide it afresh while rendering independent findings on each and every issue while applying judicious mind on the basis of the evidence already available on the file within a period of three months positively. The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower revisional court on 1.2.2016 for further proceedings.