' MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, J.---Through the instant revision petition, the petitioners have called in question the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan, whereby the appeal filed by respondents was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2011 of learned Civil Judge, Paharpur, D. I. Khan was set aside and the case was remitted to learned trial Court with the direction to implead Ghulam Sarwar in the panel of defendants and afford opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence and thereafter decide the case afresh in accordance with law.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that predecessor of petitioners namely Syed Ghulam Raza Shah brought a suit against the respondents for permanent injunction in respect of property, detailed in the heading of plaint.
3. The suit was contested by respondents by submitting their written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues from the pleadings of the parties. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2011.
4. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2011, respondents preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Paharpur, D.I. Khan vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2014, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2011 and remitted the case to the trial Court, hence the instant revision petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the suit was instituted only for restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the predecessor of petitioners. Though it is admitted in the judgment of the learned appellate Court that respondents have not been able to prove their ownership nor possession in the suit property, but even then the case was remitted to the trial Court for recording pro and contra evidence to determine the title of the suit of the property which is not disputed in the present lis. Another point which prevailed upon the learned appellate Court to remand the case is that Ghulam Sarwar son of Nizam has not been made party to the suit and through the impugned order, he has also been ordered to be arrayed as party. As stated earlier, it is not a suit for title nor the said Ghulam Sarwar has ever disputed the possession of present petitioners in the suit property. This being the position, the evidence on record was sufficient to dispose of the appeal on merits. Order XLI Rule 24, C.P.0 is much clear in this respect which provides that:--
24. Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally.---Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine -the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds."
' In such scenario, the learned appellate Court should have decided the case on available record and should have avoided its remand.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.3.2014 is set aside and the case is remanded to learned Additional District Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan for decision of the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.