MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Order dated 27-2-2015, of the learned District Judge Gilgit that he passed in C.F.A. No,34/2013, has been challenged through this petition. Petitioner has further prayed for upholding order dated 12-09-2013, of the learned Civil Judge No,1 Gilgit, passed in Civil Suit No,122/2013.
2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of appointment of respondent No,2, as an employee in the department of respondent No,4/defendant No,4. In their plaint, respondents/plaintiffs averred that respondent No,1 has donated a piece of land for construction of a dispensary in his village and in consideration thereof, respondent No,4 agreed for appointment of respondent No,2/plaintiff No,2 against any post of BPS-01 in the building of the said dispensary. In this connection, parties entered into an agreement also. Through the suit, petitioner prayed for specific performance of the said agreement. Through order dated 12-09-2013, the courtof learned Civil Judge rejected plaint of the suit, and on appeal (C.F.A. No,34/2013), the learned first appellate court passed the following order:-- "In view of above appeal is hereby accepted. Impugned order dated 12-09-2013 passed by learned civil judge in C.S. No,122/2013 is hereby set aside. Case resultantly stands remanded to learned trial court for trial and disposal on . Merits. Besides this appellants have also preferred an application for grant of interim injunction with this appeal and ad-interim injunction is granted by this court which will continue till cognizance of the matter is taken by learned trial court. Parties to appear before learned Civil Judge Gilgit on 09-03-2015 for their further directions and record of learned trial court be returned to them for their further proceedings. File after due completion be consigned to record.
Announced 27-02-2015 Sd/xxx District Judge, Gilgit
3. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for petitioner and have also heard learned counsel for respondents. Relevant record also perused. Learned counsel for parties debated before me on the correctness or otherwise of the two orders of the two courts below. Both the two courts below have obviously given their different opinions. Through impugned order, the first appellate court did not agree with the pinion of learned trial court and has remanded the case back to the trial court. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for parties and I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has wrongly rejected the plaint and instead the trial court must have gone through all the trial proceedings. The grounds of rejection of the plaint described in the order dated 12-09-2013 of the trial court are not in accordance with the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. So this single ground is sufficient to hold that the impugned order is correct except to the extent of grant of temporary injunction through the impugned order.
4. In view of the above discussion, I pass the order by upholding the impugned order of the learned District Court but with the following remarks:-- a) Remand order of the learned first appellate court and direction for decision of the Civil Suit on merits, is upheld. b) The grant of temporary injunction through the impugned order stands withdrawn and the learned trial court is free to reconsider the question of grant or otherwise of the temporary injunction. c) Learned trial court is free to consider the effects and application of case law referred in order dated 12-09-2013 of the learned trial court to the case in hand according to the circumstances, after trial of the case on merits.
5. . File be consigned to record.