AMJAD KHAN, J.- On the basis of title secured in a part of erstwhile evacuee property by means of P.T.D, dated 3.10.1960 issued by the Settlement Department, petitioner brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to , in effect, challenge vires and legality of order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha on 15.10.1976 and 23.11.1976. After contest, there were nine issues (including the relief) set down for trial and by its judgment dated 11.5.1982 trial Court dismissed the suit and appeal thereagainst filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by learned District Judge by his judgment dated 5.6.1983.
2. This revision-petition was admitted to regular hearing on 23.10.1983 to, inter alia, consider the contentions, firstly, that entire documentary evidence existing on the record had not been considered and auction-list (Exh. P.4) and bid- sheet (Exh. P.8) had, in particular, been left out of consideration and, secondly, that jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities after the repeal of the Settlement Laws was challenged before the Courts below but no finding has been recorded in regard to that objection.
3. Records have been received and perused. There is no doubt that the documents Exhs. P.4 and P.S have not been considered by the two Courts below who have further failed to notice disparity between the documents Exhs. P.1, P.6 and P.7 which happen to be certified copies of one and the same building-plan, first one having been issued in the years 1977 and the last one in February, 1965. This matter of vital importance for the purpose of correct decision of the dispute should have been appropriately reconciled on the basis of the other evidence available on the record but the Courts below have simply overlooked it against their duty to, if so may have been found necessary, also require further evidence to be produced. Displaced Persons laws were repealed in July, 1974 and specified officers were thereunder authorised to thereafter pass orders in only certain category of matters. Hence, vires of the orders passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner could neither be left undetermined nor may they have formed the basis of determination of the controversy.
4. In the above circumstances, judgments passed by the two Courts below are not sustainable inasmuch as they have resulted from materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction conferred by law and are, hence, liable to be setaside. Judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below are accordingly set aside upon accepting this revision-petitioner and the suit is remitted to the trial Court for the same being decided afresh after providing o opportunity to the parties for explaining away the disparity between the certified copies of building-plan issued in the years 1965 and 1977.
No order as to costs.
5. Parties have been directed to put in appearance before the trial Court on 1.12.1991.