MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Through this judgment, I am disposing of Civil Revision No,95/2014 (this petition) and Civil Revision No,8/2015. So, hereunder, petition means both the said petitions and petitioners mean petitioners of both the said petitions, as petitioners of both the said petitions are same. Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 of both the said petitions have filed two appeals (C.F.A.
No,24/2014 and C.F.A. No,27/2014) in the first appellate court, one appeal (C.F.A. No,24/2014) is against the order dated 19-02-14 while another appeal (C.F.A. No,27/2014) is against the order dated 24-02-2014 of the trial court. Learned first appellate court decided both the said appeals through the order impugned through both the above referred petitions. Copy of this order be placed on Civil Revision No,08/2015.
2. From perusal of record, it is evident that the current round of litigation is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation parties except respondents Nos,1 and 2 contested a suit (Civil Suit No,60-A/85). Parties except respondents Nos,1 and 2 also contested a suit, Civil Suit No,61/2009.
It is not disputed that subject matter of both the said suits is same. Plaintiff Sarwar Khan (late) filed Civil Suit No,60- A/1985. During pendency of the said suit, another suit (Civil Suit No,120/1987) was filed against the plaintiff Sarwar Khan. It is very important to note that petitioners/plaintiffs are legal heirs of said Sarwar Khan. Both the said suits were consolidated and the then learned court of Civil Judge passed an order/ judgment on 31-03-1991 on both the said suits. In the light of said judgment/decree, Civil Suit No,60-A/85 was decreed in favour of plaintiff Sarwar Khan while Civil Suit No,120/87 was decreed in favour of the Shia Brotheri. But the Shia Brotheri filed appeal (C.F.A.
No,13/91) and another appeal (C.F.A. No,10/91) was also filed. On 12-10-1998, a decision came on the said two appeals, after consolidating the same. Through the said decision/judgment, in the appellate forum, decree in favour of plaintiff Sarwar Khan was maintained while decree/judgment in favour of Shia Brotheri was modified. Either of the parties filed a revision which was withdrawn on 03-12-2001 and thus the decisions in favour of plaintiff Sarwar Khan attained finality. It is worth nothing that the learned Chief Court remanded the case back to the trial court with direction to implead respondents Nos,1 and 2 to the suit without setting aside or modifying decree in favour of Sarwar Khan.
3. It is also important to note that there were two civil revisions sub-judice in the then Chief Court G.B., one with title "Ali Mohammad etc. v. Sarwar Khan etc." while another was filed by Shia Brotheri, titled "Shia Brotheri v. Sarwar Khan etc." Through order dated 17-06-09, on Civil Revision titled "Shia Brotheri v. Sarwar Khan etc.", the then Chief Court set aside orders of Civil Judge and District Judge and remanded the case to trial court with direction to implead Provincial Government as party to the case. As the then Chief Court passed the said order on civil revision titled "Shia Brotheri v.
Sarwar Khan etc." without touching the civil revision titled "Ali Mohammad etc. v. Sarwar Khan etc.", therefore, on the one hand, order of District Court in favour of petitioners of this petition attained finality but above referred order of Chief Court, obviously created a big confusion which needs to be solved. The then Chief Court marked presence of the then A.G. in order sheet dated 17- 04-2001 as well as in order sheet dated 17-06-02. After said remand, learned trial court of Civil Judge issued notices to the Provincial Government, who appeared in the court accordingly but did not file any written statement. In the later adjournments, the petitioners remained absent. Learned trial court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners through order dated 06-12-03. Then suit titled "Shia Brotheri v. Sarwar Khan etc." was dismissed on 25-02-2004. By then, file of Civil Suit No,60-A/85 was found which was missing till then. Learned trial court resumed proceedings on the said file of Civil Suit No,60-A/85 and impleaded respondents Nos,1 and 2 to the said suit. Learned trial court directed so added defendants to file their written statement till 30-11-2013. Said defendants did not file written statement instead of availing four adjournments till 19-02-2014. On 19-02-2014, defense of the so added defendants was struck off. On 20-02-2014, Shia Brother' withdrew their application under Order I Rule 10(2), C.P.C. that they had applied for getting themselves impleaded as party to the said suit. On 24-02-2014, suit was decreed and obviously ex- parte proceedings dated 19-02-2014 merged in the final order dated 24-02-2014. Thereafter, petitioners filed appeal (C.F.A. No,24/2014) against order dated 19-02-2014 of Civil Judge. It is yet another very important aspect of the case that petitioners did not file any appeal against order dated 24-02-2014 till 24-03-2014. Anyhow, respondents Nos,1 and 2 filed appeal (C.F.A. No,27/2014) against the order dated 24-02-2014. Then on 22-03-2014, yet another appeal was filed and the learned first appellate court consolidated the said three appeals.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that orders of the courts that they passed in the first round of the litigation have attained finality in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The questions debated before me are:--
1. Whether the proceedings initiated against the respondents Nos,1 and 2 by the trial court through his order dated 24-02-2014 and 19-02-2014 are legally correct orders?
2. Whether the learned first appellate court has correctly set aside impugned orders dated 19-02- 2014 and 24-02-2014?
In this connection, I am reproducing the relevant part of the impugned order hereunder:-- "Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and relevant law I have come to the conclusion that appellant was Provincial Government therefore, the suit falls within the ambit of section 80, C.P.C. and the learned trial court has exercised its powers with the contemplation of Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. but the powers should be exercised judiciously and in accordance with law. Learned trial court has even finally decided the suit before the expiry of 90 days and it is an admitted fact that no notice was given to the concerned quarters of Provincial Government. That submission of written statement by the Provincial Government would enable the court to get at a right conclusion once and for all.
5. I have gone through the order sheets of the trial court from 30-11-2013 till 20-02-2014. Learned trial court adjourned the case for filing written statement of defendants Nos,8 and 9. who are respondents Nos,1 and 2 of this case, from 30-11-2013 to 05-12-2013. On 05-12-2013, learned DA requested for adjournment and the trial court adjourned the case to 11-12-2013 and then to 21-12- 2013. From 21-12-2013, the learned trial court adjourned the case to 19-02-2014 as last chance for filing written statement by the respondents Nos,1 and 2. From minute perusal of above part of impugned order, which is the only part of impugned order that contained the grounds or basis of the impugned order, it is evident that learned first appellate court has badly failed to note that the learned trial court of Civil Judge afforded ample chance to the respondents Nos,1 and 2 for filing written statement. Learned first appellate court has just discussed the question that thirty days or ninety days be afforded for filing written statement by the respondents Nos,1 and 2. While in the case in hand, there is sufficient proof that respondents Nos,1 and 2 did not file written statement although availed lengthy adjournments for filing the same. In my opinion, the court is not bound to adjourn the case for ninety days or even thirty days enabling the petitioners for filing written statement. The question is, whether respondents Nos,1 and 2 availed ample time for filing the written statement? From perusal of order sheets of the Chief Court, it is evident that the A.G. appeared in the Chief Court before it was remanded to the learned trial court and the learned trial court adjourned the case for four times affording time to the respondents Nos,1 and 2 for filing written statement. I, therefore, hold that respondents Nos,1 and 2 are not interested in progress of the case and the case is lingering on for the last more than a decade or even for more than two decades.
6. I, therefore, allow this petition throughout. Impugned order set aside. Orders of the learned trial court upheld. Parties to bear their own costs. This file be consigned to record.