' This Civil revision arises out of the judgment dated 14-4-1984 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Okara whereby he set aside a declaratory-decree dated 16-11-1983 passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner Liaqat Baig with regard to the orders prejudicial to his academic qualification passed by the defendant Board and remanded the suit on the basis of his finding appearing in para 4 of his judgment, which may better be reproduced hereunder:- "As already pointed out above inter alia the appellant took the plea that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the suit, as such, it is liable to be rejected. The objection was taken in para No.3 of the preliminary objection, whereas about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court the objection was raised in para 2 of the plaint. Surprisingly the learned trial Court did not frame any issue with regard to jurisdiction of Civil Court as contained in 'para No.3 of the plaint. The counsel for the appellant has referred to the provisions as contained in section 29 of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Ordinance, No.7 of 1968 wherein under section 29 of the aforementioned Ordinance Civil Court is debarred to take cognizance in such matters. Since thereis a statutory provision expressly providing a bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court, in such like matter, as such, it was desirable and necessary to frame the required issue. The trial Court failed to frame the necessary issue, as such, it is doubtful as to whether decision on the remaining issues in the absence of any finding on the point of jurisdiction is sustainable in the eye of law. I accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and hereby direct the trial Court to frame necessary issue with regard to the preliminary objection No.3 contained in the written statement, provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if any, and then to decide all the issues afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20-4-1984.
The file be consigned to record."
' Trial Court had framed as many as 7 issues, including that of the relief, whereof issue No.2 is as under:- "2. Whether the Civil Court at Okara had no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit?"
' On the basis of the evidence led by the parties trial Court had decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and had decreed his suit, as stated already. In the appeal, the Additional District Judge did not touch upon the trial Court's findings of the said issues and did not consider even the evidence existing on the record and proceeded to set aside the trial Court's decree without indicating as to why may he have entertained doubt with regard to the sustainability of the trial Court's findings on those issues and it also defies comprehension as to how may this factor have been capable of leading to the result of acceptance of appeal and setting aside of the trial Court's judgment and decree. It is provided in section 99 of the C.P.C., that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied nor shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any error or defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court.
' The appellate Judge did not himself reach a conclusion that A the error of not framing an issue in accordance with the preliminary objection No.3 in the written statement had either affected the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the trial Court, therefore, the order of remand passed by him is not only fanciful but is also against the law.
2. It is argued that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with the provision made in Rule 25 of Order XLI of the C.P.C., and even Rule 23 thereof could not get attracted and still the Additional District Judge has disregarded the provision made in Rule 24 thereof to only arbitrarily remand the suit under Rule 23-A so that not only the reversal of the trial Court's decree was unwarranted in law but also there could not be any reason why the case may not have been capable of being determined finally by the appellate Court on the basis of the record and there, in any case, was no justification for throwing the entire suit open for re-trial even on the issues already tried and determined by the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has candidly expressed his inability to support the impugned judgment and has rather suggested that the appeal may be sent down to be decided afresh in accordance with the law.
4. It has been repeatedly held in the judgments of high authority that remand should not be ordered lightly and so, particularly where the case can be decided by the appellate Court itself.
Reference may for instance, be made to Pramatha Nath Chowdhury and 17 others v. Kamir Mondal and 3 others PLD 1965 SC 434, Fateh All v. Pir Muhammad and others 1975 SCMR 221 and Nasir Ahmad and another v. Khuda Bakhsh and another 1976 SCMR 388.
' There is no conceivable reason why, if the objection had to be regarded as still alive despite the defendant's failure to claim any issue on the point in the trial Court, then the appellate Judge may not have himself decided the question of jurisdiction of Civil Court.
5. There is no doubt that the Additional District Judge has acted illegally as also with material irregularity in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction in thus setting aside the trial Court's decree to remand the suit for decision afresh and the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
6. In result, this civil revision is accepted and the order of remand passed on 14-4-1984 by the Additional District Judge-I, Okara is set aside with the result that the respondent's appeal in the District Court will be considered pending and will be re-heard to be decided afresh in accordance with the law either by the learned District Judge himself or by an Additional District Judge other than Malik Mushtaq Ahmad, who had previously dealt with the case. In the circumtances, parties are left to bear their own costs.