AMJAD KHAN, J.- A declaratory suit filed by the petitioners was not tried in accordance with law and happened to be dismissed by the trial Court on 26.1.1987 on the basis of report dated 27.3.1985 made by Ch. Mumtaz Akhtar, Advocate, Kharian, as a Local Commissioner/Referee. The said report, however, shows that he did not act in either of the said two capacities and proceeded to take evidence for and against the claim which, he reported, had been opposed by three-times the number of persons deposing in favour of the defendant than those who had appeared for the plaintiff's.
2. Appeal thereagainst filed by the plaintiffs came up before Muhammad Fayyaz Ahmad Khawaja, Additional District Judge, Gujrat, who does not seem to have any clearly visualized the capacity wherein the said Advocate may have acted inasmuch as he has described him at one place as sole-arbitrator' and at another as 'a referee' and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on 13.5.1989 by making the only contribution to be found recorded1 in the last para (No. 4) of his judgment as under:- "4.1 have attended to the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties with great care and caution. I find much force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and I am fully satisfied that the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator Mr. Mumtaz Akhtar Advocate, Kharian who after going at the spot hearing persons appearing in support of either of the parties, made a detailed report on 27.3.1985 which was never objected to by any of the parties, to my mind the learned trial court has passed a legal and valid order on the basis of report of the referee who was appointed with the consent of both the parties, resultantly, finding no fault with the impugned judgment and decree I uphold the same, dismiss this appeal with costs. File after necessary completion be consigned to the record room."
3. Plaintiffs have now invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It cannot be denied that treatment meeted out to the appeal below is far from being satisfactory inasmuch as judgment of dismissal thereof fails to meet the requirements of Rule 31 of Order XL1 C.P.C, and is, hence, not sustainable.
Even the trial Court's dealing of the suit has been equally unsatisfactory inasmuch as neither was any issue framed by it nor did it record any evidence in the suit. Requisite power could not be abdicated in favour of a Local Commissioner who did not have any authority conferred by law for recording evidence of the parties and muchless may the trial Court have owned it for disposing of the suit on its basis.
4. Since judgment passed in the appeal below has to be scratched for the fore-stated reason, therefore, question arose as to whether this Court may send the appeal down for being reheard to be decided afresh in accordance with law or the suit itself may be remitted for being given trial in accordance with law. After considering the pros and cons, learned counsel for the parties agreed to suggest that proceedings taken in both the Courts below may be set-aside for the suit being remitted to the trial Court to be decided in accordance with law, after due trial.
5. Hence, this revision-petition is allowed by consent and, setting aside the so-called judgments passed by both the Courts below, the suit is remitted to the trial Court for being decided in accordance with law from the stage where it was on 11.3.1985. It will proceed expeditiously for being able to decide the suit preferably within the coming six months, Parties have been directed to put in appearance before the trial Court on 1.12.1991.
6. In the circumstances, there is no order made as to costs.