' This first appeal is directed against the order dated 13-6-1973 whereby the learned Additional District Judge II, Sahiwal, accepting the appeal of the respondents remanded the suit for fresh trial according to law with the direction that the plaintiff shall amend the plaint by impleading Masjid Dar-ul-Hadis as a party to the suit and also by showing the site in dispute in a plan to be filed with the plaint.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that a suit was filed by the appellant against the respondents for a declaration to the effect that he was the owner of land in question through oral sale with consequential relief that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of the appellant-plaintiff. The learned trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit. On appeal filed by the respondents, the impugned remand order was passed with the aforenoted direction as the learned Appellate Court was of the view that Muhammad Yusuf defendant-respondent No, 2 was only a Manager of the mosque and that Masjid Dar-ul-Hadis itself should have been sued.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that juristic personality cannot be extended to a mosque and that, in any case, the mosque itself was fully represented as Muhammad Yusuf was impleaded in his capacity of Mohtamim of the said mosque.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. In the plaint defendant No, 2 was described as under:- "Muhammad Yusuf son of Kamalud-Din, Mohtamim Masjid Dar-ulHadis resident of Rajowal, Tehsil Depalpur, District Sahiwal."
' In the written statement filed, Muhammad Yusuf did not raise any objection to the effect that there was any misdescription of the defendant as impleaded. Muhammad Yusuf appeared as D. W. 5 and in his statement he deposed that he was `Mohtamim' of Masjid Dar-ul-Hadis. Again, the appeal was filed in his capacity as `Mohtamim' of Masjid Dar-ul-Hadis. It is, therefore, apparent that Masjid Dar-ul-Hadis was fully represented throughout the proceedings. Without going into the question that religious institution like Masjid has the juristic personality of its own, it is apparent that it was the Masjid Dar-ul-Hadis which was being sued and the name of Muhammad Yusuf was entered while describing the defendant-mosque as he was admittedly the Mohtamim of the mosque. It is well-settled that mere misdescription of .a party is inconsequential if the misdescription has not affected the merits of the case or jurisdiction of the Court. In the instant case admittedly, the manner in which the Masjid Dar-ul-Hadis was described, has not affected either the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. In fact, the learned Appellate Court did not advert to the merits of the case and remanded the suit after observing that Masjid Dar-ul- Hadis should have been impleaded as a defendant in the suit and a plan of the property should have been filed alongwith the suit. The learned Appellate Court failed to notice that Muhammad Yusuf was impleaded as a defendant in his capacity of and as Mohtamim of the mosque and the site plan was already on the record having been filed alongwith the plaint. It will, therefore, be seen that both the grounds on which the remand was ordered were not available and, as such, there was no justification for remanding the suit.
5. The net result of the above discussion is that the order dated 13-6-1973 is set aside, and as a consequence thereof, the appeal shall be considered to be still pending and shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law. As it is an old matter, the parties are directed to appear on 7.4- 1984 before the learned District Judge, Okara, who will dispose of the appeal within two months from 7-4-1984. The record shall immediately be forwarded to the Court of District Judge, Okara.