' On 25th February, 1969, Ahmad and Mushtaq respondents filed suit for possession by pre-emption on the basis of being owner in the estate against Noor Muhammad Appellant, in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Jhang. It was averred in the plaint that although the land was sold for Rs,8,000 yet to defeat pre-emptor, it was fictitiously shown in the mutation as Rs,20,000. The suit was resisted. The trial Court framed 9 issues. The parties led their evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 20th January, 1972 subject to the payment of Rs,20,000. Feeling aggrieved thereby Noor Muhammad, vendee/defendant filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Jhang. Ahmad and Mushtaq, preemptors, also filed appeal challenging the findings of the trial Court on issue No,2, which is as under:-- ' Whether the amount of Rs,20,000 was fixed in good faith or was actually paid?
2. Through single judgment dated 29th July, 1972, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by Noor Muhammad vendee-defendant. While accepting the appeal filed by the pre-emptors, he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case to it for fresh decision on issue No,3 which is as under:--
(3) What was the market value of the suit land?
3. Feeling dissatisfied, Noor Muhammad defendant has filed two appeals i.e, RSA No,774/72 and FAO No,190/72. I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that after having set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the learned District Judge was not justified in keeping the findings of the trial Court on issues other than issues Nos.2 and 3 intact. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant has decided not to dispute the sale price of the suit land shown in the mutation and was prepared to pay Rs,20,000, therefore, issue No,3 has become redundant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the learned District Judge.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I am of the view that after having accepted the appeal and having set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, there was no justification to uphold the findings of the trial Court on issues other than issues Nos.2 and 3. Since the plaintiff/appellant is prepared to pay the sale price mentioned in the mutation and there remains no dispute with regard to the sale price, therefore, trial of issue No,3 by the trial Court is no more necessary or desirable.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, the order passed by the learned District Judge on 29th July, 1972 is set aside and the case is sent back to him for fresh decision of the appeal on all issues, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.