' This civil revision arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby he on 29-7-1982 confirmed the judgment and decree dated 19-9-81 passed by Civil Judge, Vehari, decreeing the suit for possession filed by Sharif-ud-Din respondent against Abdul Rashid and Sardar petitioners.
2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that on 24-4-1974, Sharif-ud-Din respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit land against the petitioner. The suit was decreed on 5-11-1975. On appeal, the learned District Judge framed 7 issues and remanded the case for fresh decision. After the remand, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 31-2-1978. On appeal it was again remanded by the District Judge, Vehari on 24-4-1979. This time the suit was decreed by trial Court on 19-9-1981.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/defendants filed appeal which was dismissed on 29-7-1982.
Hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel has raised the following points :
(i) That the Judgment of the trial Court is against the direction given in the remand order dated 24-4-1979 inasmuch as the trial Court was directed to decide all issues afresh but it decided only issue No,
6. Since the remand order has not been correctly understood by both the Courts below, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal.
(ii) That both the Courts below have failed to consider the report of Local Commissioner properly.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the judgment dated 24-4-1979 carefully. ' The judgment as a whole gives the impression that the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision on issue No, 6 alone. Since the learned District Judge had himself dealt with the other issues and confirmed the findings of the trial Court on those issues, therefore, it cannot be said that he had remanded the case for decision on all issues. From the trend of the judgment, it is crystal clear that he had sent back the case for fresh decision on issue No, 6 alone and as such both the learned Courts below have properly understood the intention of the remand order dated 24-4-1979. As for point No, (ii) raised by the learned counsel I find that the trial Court has properly appreciated the report of Local Commissioner in para. No, 7 of the judgment and has stated that : "The plaintiff if he is held liable to pay cost of construction would be responsible to pay the cost according to the value at the time when construction was made which as stated by the defendants is Rs, 60,000 only. For this reason, report made by the Local Commissioner is without any effect."
As for the grievance that the learned District Judge, has also not taken into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner, I find that since the judgment is silent on this point, therefore, it appears that the report of the Local Commissioner was not pressed before him. For all these reasons. I do not find any force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel.
5. For what has been -stated above, this revision is dismissed in limine.