' The order will dispose of the two revisions filed under M. L. R. 115, against the common order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad, dated 21st December, 1983, since based on identical grounds. The brief facts leading to these revisions are that respondents Barkha etc. Who held separate tenancies filed two, joint pre-emption suits against the petitioners. The suits were decreed by the A.C./Collector, Chiniot in their favour. The decrees were then challenged in appeal by the petitioners vendees, amongst others on ground of material irregularities and misjudgment. The learned Additional Commissioner while admitting that the issues of one case were mentioned in the judgment of the other case, nonetheless proceeded to examine the contested issues and finally dismissed the appeals, with observation that there were no genuine reasons to interfere with the judgment-decrees. Hence these revisions.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On consideration of the facts of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the judgment of the learned trial Court, in fact, suffers from the following serious material irregularities:-
(i) The claim of each of the pre-emptors which was based on separate tenancy, was not separately examined; (ii)No separate findings were recorded by the trial Court in respect of the claim of each pre- emptor;
(iii) A joint pre-emption decree was granted in favour of the respondents without specifying their respective share in the decree; and
(iv) Some of the issues framed were not discussed in the judgment of one case and some issues were discussed in the other judgment to which they were not relevant.
By the nature of these irregularities, these were not rectifiable by the appellate Court. The findings given by the learned Additional Commissioner do not in any way cure these material irregularities.
I, therefore, find it necessary on ground of equity and justice to remand both the cases for fresh hearing and decision by the A.C./Collector, Chiniot.