' This appeal is directed against the remand order dated 6-5-1976 passed by Mr.Jacob Issac, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, setting aside judgment and decree dated 3-10-1974 of learned Civil Judge, Lahore dismissing plaintiff Dur Muhammad's suit for declaration and prepetual injunction.
2. Facts giving rise to the controversy briefly stated are that State land measuring 275 Kanals and 5 Marlas was allotted to Wali Muhammad son of Nizam-ud-Din for a period of 20 years under Well Scheme in the year 1959-60. Possession of the land was delivered to the said allottee on 20-12- 1963. Period of allotment was to be reckoned from the date of delivery of possession. On the basis of an agreement dated 17-12-1964 Exh.P1, Dur Muhammad son of Bahadur All instituted a civil suit for declaration that he was entitled to 3/8th glare in the suit land and was in lawful possession of land comprised in Khasras Nos. 1687 to 1689, 1691 to 1698, 1700, 1702 and 1703 and further prayed for perpetual injunction, as consequential relief, restraining defendant No.1 (Wall Muhammad allottee) from interfering with his possession. The shares of the parties were given in para. 3 of the plaint.
Civil suit was resisted by Wali Muhammad who filed a written statement, wherein he denied the execution of the above-noted agreement and its legal validity under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Learned Civil Judge proceeded to trial on the following issues:-
(1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. (2) Whether this suit is maintainable.
(3) Whether the plaintiff has locus standi.
3. Parties produced evidence of their own choice in support of the above-stated issues. Jurisdiction of civil Court was found to exist. Learned Civil Judge found Issues Nos.2 and 3 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit on 30-10-1974. Section 19 of the Colonization of Government, Lands (Punjab), Act 1912 was found to operate as a bar to the transfer of any right in the State land. Against the dismissal order, Dur Muhammad preferred an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of learned District Judge, Lahore. This appeal was entrusted for decision and disposal to learned Additional District Judge of the same District. Vide order dated 6-5-1976, appeal was accepted and suit was remanded to the trial Court. After discussing the import of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, the Court observed:- "This is a case where the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute. This is a case where the, point as to whether section 19 of the said Act is applicable to the present suit or not is yet to be determined and has not been fully thrashed out by the lower Court.
' In view of the above discussion, I observe that this is a fit case for remand. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and set aside the order of the lower Court and I remand the case with the direction that the lower Court should decide the case afresh in accordance with law and in the light of my above observation."
' Remand order has been assailed in appeal before this Court. The appeal was admitted to hearing on 9-9-1976 and has. come up today for final hearing in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record requisitioned from the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned appellate Court has proceeded to remand the suit for re-decision to the trial Court in the absence of any real legal or factual necessity existing for it under law. Material evidence was already on file including the terms of agreement Exh.P.1. Such being the case, the appellate Court was bound to decide the matter on the available material as required by the provisions of Order XLI, rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has relied upon Noor Muhammad v.- District Judge, Bahawalpur and 2 others 1984 CLC 1446 and Rana Khurshid Ahmad v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others PLD 1984 Lah . 169 to contend that the remand order passed by learned Additional District Judge is in disregard of the plain provisions of Order XLI, rules 23, 23-A and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the pronouncements of the superior Courts. It was contehded that all the material evidence which was needed for resolution of the controversy 'in the light of the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was already on record and the point requiring decision was the application of section 19 of Punjab Act V of 1912. This could have been decided by learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, in reply asserted that the remand order was amply justified in the circumstances of the case and need not be interfered.
' Remand is not to be ordered lightly by the appellate Court, moreso, when the evidence for the application of law is already available. Unnecessry remands, besides adding to the agony of litigant public involve consumption of unnecessary expense and wastage of public time. There was no insuperable legal obstacle existing in the way of learned appellate Court, to pronounce finally upon the application of the provisions of section 19 of the above-noted Act to the facts of the case under consideration and decide the appeal finally. It has been observed in the case of Noor Muhammad v. District Judge.
"The law is well-settled on the point that if an appellate Court finds that any question has been wrongly decided by a lower Court it should, instead of lightly remanding the case to the lower Court decide other questions involved in case also, if there is sufficient material on the record for its so doing and finally decide the case at its own level with a view to saving the parties from another round of litigation."
' Similar observations were made by this Court in Rana Khurshid Ahmad v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others. It has been repeatedly held by the superior Courts that in order to shorten litigation and to save people from avoidable expense and mental agony, remands should be avoided and the Courts of correction should decide the questions itself finally where the entire material is available on record. Order XLI, rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:- "24--Where evidence on record is sufficient, appellate Court may determine case finally--Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds."
5. A bare look at the rule read with the connected rules, makes it crystal clear that the impugned order of remand was passed in improper exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Learned Additional District Judge was bound to and should have decided the controversy by himself without calling in aid of the learned trial Court on the question of application of section 19 of Punjab Act V of 1912. I, therefore, feel no hesitation in agreeing with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant.
Appeal is accepted, impugned order of remand dated 6-5-1976 is set aside. The case is remitted to learned District Judge, Kasur for decision afresh, on the available material. Learned District Judge may either decide the appeal himself or may entrust it for disposal to any other Additional District Judge in the same District. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge', Kasur on 15-10-1984. Efforts be made to decide the appeal preferably within two months from the receipt of the records by the appellate Court. Office is directed to send down the records without least delay.
No orders as to costs.