' The relevant facts in brief for purpose of disposal of this appeal against the remand order passed by the learned District Judge, Muzaffargarh, on the 26th January, 1977, are these. Respondents 1 to 6 instituted suit against the appellants for a declaration that they were owners and in possession of 152 Kanals 12 Marlas of the land in dispute, situated in the area of village Alipur Janubi, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, and with consequential relief of issuance of permanent injunction restraining the apellants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed themselves to be the transferees of the land from Mst. Raji and Mst. Began who had inherited it on the demise of Nawab and Karam Elahi whom the land was said to have been allotted. The appellants contended that allotment of land in favour of Nawab and Karam Elahi had been cancelled and the land had been allotted instead to appellant No. 1 who had transferred it to appellant No.
2. The appellants contested the suit on various grounds especially they took exception to the jurisdiction of the Court which tried the suit. The learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, seized with the trial of the suit settled on 9th May, 1974, the following preliminary issues for determination:
(1) Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit?
(2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(3) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for reasons given in preliminary objection No.4 of written statement?
' He set down the suit for receiving evidence of the parties. However, on the 15th September, 1975, appellant No. 2 moved application under Order VII, rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for return or rejection of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge without taking evidence rejected the plaint.
In appeal the learned District Judge formed the view that the learned trial Court ought to have decided the cause after giving opportunity to the parties for producing evidence. Therefore, he accepted the appeal, set aside the order of rejection of plaint and remanded the suit to the learned trial Court with the directions that it should be decided after affording opportunity to the paties to lead evidence.
2. When the learned trial Court had framed issue touching its jurisdiction and had asked the parties to lead evidence thereon it was inappropriate to reject the plaint on a party's application filed midway without receiving evidence. The remand order is just and proper and does not demand interference. The appeal is without any force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.