' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2001, passed by the learned appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner Fazal Kareem was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2000 passed by the learned trial Court was confirmed and the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The facts narrated in this petition are, that the petitioner/ plaintiff namely Fazal Kareem filed a suit for possession of land measuring 2 marla 1 sarsahi, comprising khewat No.171/164, Khasra No.670-671-Min. According to Jamabandi for the year 1987-88, situated in Dunia-pur Sharqi Urban, the suit was contested by the respondent Muhammad Ilyas by filing written statement, whereupon the learned trial Court out of the controversial pleadings framed as many as nine (9) issues including issue No. 3, which relates to the limitation of the suit. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2000.
' Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner/plaintiff challenged the same in appeal, which was contested by the other side but finally the same was accepted and the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court to appoint a local commission to demarcate the land in dispute. The learned trial Court in post remand proceedings decided issue No.3, against the petitioner and finally it was held, that the suit filed by the petitioner is barred by time against which an appeal was filed, same was also dismissed.
3. The petitioners in this case is aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on the ground, that the learned trial Court has gone beyond the scope of the remand order, which is not permissible in law.
4. As appears from the record, that the learned trial Court in the first round of litigation, out of the pleadings of the parties framed nine issues including the issue No.3, which relates to the limitation of the suit for declaration. Issue No.3 is reproduced as under:-
1. ....
2. ....
3. Whether the suit is within time? OPP The learned trial Court decided issue No.3 in favour of the petitioner Fazal Kareem and hold, that the suit has been filed within time but finally dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.1993. The findings of the issue No.3, as recorded by the learned trial Court is as under:-- "The plaintiff in para No.1 of the plaint has stated that he has become owner of the suit land vide mutation 592 dated 2102.1985. The plaintiff can bring a suit for possession within 12 years under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, against the defendants. Thus the suit having been filed on 30.09.1989 is held to be well within time. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff. "
4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree the petitioner filed an appeal which was accepted by maintaining the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No.3 in para 11 of the judgment. The same are, as under:- "1 1. Issue No.3 is regarding the limitation. Trial court has held that suit is within time. Respondents have not challenged the findings of trial court through any cross-objection. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the findings therefore findings of trial court on issue of limitation do not call for any interference."
5. The learned appellate Court while remitting the case to the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 05.06.1996, directed the learned trial Court to appoint a local commission for the demarcation of the land. In fact, with the ,following reference the case was remanded:-- "14. Admittedly property in dispute and the property of respondents are adjoining. The matter of possession can only be determined by the demarcation. Valuable rights are involved. Trial Court has decided this substantial matter in a hyper technical manner. Trial Court should have done substantial justice to the parties and should have resolved the matter of demarcation by appointment of Local Commissioner. Interest of justice requires that Hyper Technical findings of trial court be set aside and the matter be remanded to trial court for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation and the decision afresh in the light of demarcation report. Being so the findings of trial court on issue No.7 are set aside and assailed judgment and decree are also set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court with the direction to appoint any expert as local commissioner for demarcation of the light of report of decide the matter afresh in the light of report of demarcation. In the circumstances, of the case no order is made as to costs.
15. File of trial court be remitted back immediately. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court (Civil Judge Dunyapur) on 26.06.1996. File of this Court be consigned to the record room after its necessary completion."
6. The learned trial Court in post remand proceeding again decided issue No.3 and declared, that the suit is barred by time and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2000, although this issue was earlier decided and findings on this issue were maintained by the learned appellate Court, while remanding the matter to the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree date 05.06.1996. The findings on issue No.3 in post remand proceeding are as under:-- "The onus to prove this issue is on the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that he has become owner of the suit land vide mutation No.592 dated 27.02.1985 and suit for possession within 12 years is not time barred, as the suit is filed on 30.09.89. But the land was allotted to both the parties, plaintiff and defendant No.1 out of Khasra No.31/2I by the orders of DSC dated 30.07.69 and were given the possession. So, both the parties were given the possession in view of the orders of DSC dated 30.07.69. Plaintiff Fazal Karim PW-3 also admitted that the constructions of the dispute are 30/35 yea,rs old. He also admitted that when the property was allotted to plaintiff by DSC and to Muhammad Ilyas Khasra Numbers were different. So the possession to the parties was given in view of their allotment by DSC on 30.07.69 and if there is any dispute as to the possession. The plaintiff was to claim the same within 12 years from 30.07.69 and the limitation expired on 30.07.81 whereas the suit is filed on 30.07.89 and the suit is held time barred and the issue is decided in favour of the defendants.
7. The petitioner being dissatisfied of the decree dated 28.10.2000, passed in post remand proceedings, filed an appeal which was dismissed, while maintaining the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No.3 (relates to the limitation of filing the suit).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners is mainly aggrieved of the post remand proceedings, wherein the learned trial Court again decided the issue No.3, which relates to the limitation for filing the suit against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits, that the learned appellate Court while remanding the case in appeal, specific reference along with terms were given, but the learned trial court instead of complying with the direction passed by the learned appellate Court, decided to re-write the judgment on all the issues.
9. As evident from the record that the learned appellate Court while remanding the order given a specific direction to the learned trial Court to appoint a local commission for the demarcation of the land but at the same time maintained the finding on issue No.3. The learned trial Court, who was under legal obligation to act in accordance with the terms of the remand order but it appears from the findings of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court has gone beyond the scope of the remand order and because of this, in appeal, the order impugned herein the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the findings on issue No.3, recorded by the learned trial Court in post remand proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in a judgment cited as "Muhammad Tahir v. Abdul Latif and 5 others" (1990 SCM R 751), that in post remand proceeding the Court will only confine to the terms of the remand order. The observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is as under:- "The learned counsel is justified in saying that those issues, which had been decided by the High Court earlier, confining the remand to only issue No.6, could not be reopened subsequently, the respondent having sought no relief against them."
' Learned counsel for the respondents although tried to support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court but could not refer any law that the Court in the post remand proceedings can go beyond the scope of the reference made by the appellate Court.
10. In view of the above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, this civil revision is allowed, the case is remitted to the learned appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the record referred above and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
11. Resultantly, this civil revision is allowed with no order as to cost.
C.M. No.801 of 2005
12. This is an application for correction of clerical mistake inadvertently made in the head-note of the plaint regarding the area in dispute of khasra No.670,671, mentioned 02 kanals 01 marla, instead of 02 marla and 01 sarsai. Application is allowed and the clerical mistake regarding the area of the land is corrected as given in the application. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.