MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This writ petition has been directed against the judgment/decree dated 4-4-2015 of the learned Additional District Judge Hunza/ Nagar, whereby, he has accepted the Civil Revision No,02/2014 of the respondents Nos.1 to 3. Through the impugned order, said court has rejected the suit and has set aside the judgment/order dated 08-03-2014 of the learned Civil Judge Nagar that he passed in Civil Suit No,41/2013.
2. Petitioner/plaintiff filed Civil Suit (C.S. No,41/2013) in the court of Civil Judge First Class Nagar.
Petitioner/plaintiff prayed through the said suit that he is owner of the suit land, measuring 50 kanals. In the plaint, petitioner/plaintiff averred that half of the suit land has devolved on him as heir of his forefathers while he has purchased rest half of the suit land from Abdul Mutallib for Rs,200,000/-. During trial proceedings of the suit, respondents/ defendants filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. And the learned trial court, through order dated 06-04-2006, dismissed the said petition. Feeling aggrieved from the same order, respondents/defendants filed revision petition (Civil Revision No,02/2014), wherein, the learned first appellate court passed the impugned order on 4-4-2015. For ready reference, the impugned order dated 4-4-2015 is reproduced here under:--
11. "The upshot of the above is that this revision petition is allowed and consequently the findings of the trial Court on preliminary legal issues 6, 7 and 9 in Civil Suit No,41/2013 are reversed. I hold the suit of plaintiff barred by the law of res judicature as such liable to be rejected within the contemplation of Order VII Rule-11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court is directed to dispose-off, the suit in the light of this judgment. Respondents/ plaintiff shall bear cost of parties."
3. We have heard learned counsel for parties. It is not disputed that parties have contested two suits for the same subject matter. It is also admitted that the courts who heard parties in connection with the two suits are the same. Petitioner/plaintiff and two others filed the first suit against Tehsildar Sikandar Abad Nagar. The second suit has been filed by petitioner/ plaintiff against the respondents. From ex-facie perusal of plaint, it is evident that petitioner/plaintiff impleaded three respondents/defendants as well as AC Nagar and Tehsildar Nagar. Through the second suit, petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for declaration coupled with permanent injunction and the similar is the remedy of the first suit also.
4. We have noted that there are a number of orders/judgments of the two courts below, that they have passed in connection with the proceedings of previous suit as well as the suit in hand (C.S. No,41/2013). Thorough debate on different orders of the two courts below shows that parties to the case have attempted to complex the position, instead of making the same clear. We feel that we should avoid basing our orders on the aspect of technicalities of the case and instead we should give substantial justice and come to the correct conclusion as to title of either of the parties to the suit land. Keeping in view all these circumstances, we deem it proper to remand the case back to the trial court for thoroughly thrashing out the actual legal position of the suit in hand and the affects of the first suit on the maintainability of this suit. Accordingly, B we set aside impugned order as well as order of the trial court passed in Civil Suit No,41/2013. Order accordingly. This file be consigned to record.