1. ' SYED HAIDER ALl PIRZADA, J.---The petitioner in the above petition has prayed for the following reliefs:--- "(i) Set aside the ex parte order, dated 10-2-1985 passed by the respondent No,1 as well as order, dated 25-3-1990 passed by the respondent No,1.
(ii) Issue directions to respondent No,1 to include Revision No,3(90) Rev Cus/83 in the order, dated 12-6-1986 passed in Revision No,3(207)Rev. Cus/85 as has already been done in respect of other Revisions of the same nature. AND ' While passing such orders, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the silver seized from the parcels carried by the petitioner to the petitioner.
2. ' And other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case."
3. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner is carrying on the business of jewellery and having shops in the major cities of Pakistan under the name and style of Ali Jewellers, and in connection with making of jewellery and allied items, the petitioner purchases silver and gold from different persons who possess same legally. In the last week of April, 1983, the petitioner alongwith some other dealers despatched Seven parcels of silver to Karachi from Punjab and while despatching the same through Pakistan Railways, made the declaration regarding the contents of the parcels as 'silver' and such word 'silver' was written on each and every parcel in bold letters.
4. ' It is the case of petitioner that on 26-4-1983 he while coming out the Karachi Cantt. Railway Station Parcel Office, after having taken delivery of three parcels was intercepted by a team sent by respondent No,2 who after inspecting the parcels seized the silver. After the seizure by respondent No,2, the matter was sent to respondent No,3 who being the Deputy Collector of Customs posted in Headquarters, Pakistan Coast Guards, issued a show-cause notice and after hearing the matter, confiscated the silver by his order, dated 8-6-1983. Four other parcels lying in the Parcel Office were also seized alongwith the parcels of other parties and the same were also confiscated alongwith the parcels of the other parties by the respondent No,3 by his order, dated 29-9-1989. The petitioner felt aggrieved and went up in appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Karachi but the same were dismissed by order, dated 12-6-1985. The petitioner being aggrieved went in revision in respect of three parcels on 10-5-1984 being Revision No,3(90)/Rev- Cus/84 and in respect of four parcels being Revision No,3(221)Rev-Cus/85. The revision petitions were allowed by an order, dated 12-6-1986 and ordered the release of silver seized by Pakistan Coast Guards. On perusal of the order passed by the respondent No,1, it was observed that the number of Revision No,3(90)/Rev-Cus/84 was not included in the said release order as a result of which a letter was written asking for necessary correction of the mistake in the said order. As the petitioner did not receive any reply, as such after a lapse of about month another letter was sent to the respondent No,1 on 4-9-1986 requesting for rectification of the error. Thereafter a third letter was written on ---5-1987. The counsel of the petitioner visited the office of the respondent No,1 and came to know that the Revision Petition No,3(90)/Rev-Cus/84 was dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21-11-1987 filed a Constitutional petition in this Court. This petition was disposed of on 17-10-1988. It is advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the order which reads as under:-- ' It is not necessary for us to decide the first contention of the petitioner in this case as we find that the application filed by the petitioner under section 206 of the Customs Act has not been decided by the respondent on the plea that the revision application of petitioner was already dismissed for non-prosecution on 30-11-1985. This is hardly a ground for not deciding the petition of petitioner filed under section 206 of the Customs Act.
6. ' We accordingly direct the respondent to dispose of the application under section 206 filed by the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law."
7. ' Thereafter, the respondent No,1, rejected the application by order dated 25-3-1990. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion from the impugned order which reads as under:-- "Thus section 206 permits the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in any decision or order or errors arising therein from accidental slip or omission at any time. In this case, however, no clerical error etc. is evident from the case record. The revision application of the petitioner was decided on 10-12-1985 on merits on the basis of records and evidence available before the revisional authority.
8. The other order which the applicant has quoted was passed on 14-7-1986. The order already passed cannot be effected or altered by a subsequent order which pertains to a different seizure.
9. Since no clerical or arithmetical error or an error from accidental slip or omission is evident in this case, the Federal Government does not see any reason to modify the impugned order in revision under section 206 of the Customs Act, 1969. The ' application is, accordingly, rejected."
10. ' The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the above Constitutional petition.
11. ' We have heard Mr. Sohail Muzaffar in support of the petition and Mr. Muhammad Naimur Rehman, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. We have gone through the impugned order.
12. ' The grievance of the petitioner is that after an order of remand by this Court, the respondent No,1 by reason of the provisions of section 206 of the Customs Act, has come to believe that nothing more remains to be done since no clerical or arithmetical error or an error from accidental slip or omission is evident in the case, the Federal Government does not see any reason to modify the impugned order in revision under section 206 of the Act. It seems that the functionaries of the Federal Government are labouring under a wrong impression and we have thought it proper to interpret the earlier order of the Division Bencli which remanded the case.
13. ' The effect of order of remand could properly be appreciated by reference to Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rules 23 and 25 of the said Order are relevant. While one out of the rules relate to remand of a case as a whole, the other contemplates remand on the ground of failure of the trial Court to frame and try an issue. On a comparison of the provisions, it would appear that in a case where a decree is reversed in appeal, the Appellate Court may remand the case with a direction for trial of "issue or issues". In such cases, any further evidence could be adduced in the case itself and the trial Court could have full power of considering the entire case afresh. Under Rule 25, the Appellate Court has power of framing one issue and referring the same for trial and the trial Court would after recording evidence on such issue, return the case to the appellate Court. The question in the present case is whether the order of remand amounted to remitting of the entire case for hearing. In the case reported in AIR 1918 Lah..at page 342, a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court had remanded the case for further enquiry by the lower appellate Court. Such lower appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court for recording evidence. An objection was taken before the Lahore High Court and the same was rejected by stating as follows:--- "The objection is highly technical and it was certainly not the intention of this Court, when issuing the remand order, that the District Judge should be precluded from directing the first Court to record any additional evidence if necessary."
14. ' In the earlier case from the Punjab Chief Court viz. Lahore Bank Limited v. Lakhi Ram, 19 IC 970, a Division Bench considered the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 25, C.P.C. and distinguished the same from the provisions contained in Order XLI, Rule 23, C.P.C. The learned Judge considered the combined effect of both the provisions and expressed as follows:--- "We do not at present decide whether Rule 23 is applicable to a remand under Rule 25 but admitting for the present, that it does apply, it is clear that this Court did not direct, that additional evidence should be taken by any other subordinate Court but merely remanded the case to the Divisional Judge himself for enquiry and report, and in accordance with the clear wording of Rule 25 that Court itself has to try the issue and to record finding thereon, after taking the evidence produced by the parties."
15. ' In this case, reliance was placed on two earlier cases namely Sabri v. Ganeshi 14 All. 28 and Ali Sher Khan's,. Ahmedullah Khan 29 All.
660. In both these cases, the order of remand was one under Order XLI, Rule 25, C.P.C. and the direction to the lower appellate Court was to give findings on certain issues. In yet another case which is also a Division Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case of Lala Singh v. Ramlal AIR 1925 Lah. 39, some issues were remanded by the Court of second appeal to the lower appellate Court for trial. The lower appellate Court appointed a Commissioner for the examination of witnesses and an objection was taken on the ground that the procedure adopted by the lower appellate Court was in violation of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 28, C.P.C. In pressing this objection, reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of Lahore Bank Limited v. Lakhi Ram.
16. Sabri Ganeshi and Ali Sher Khan v. Amanullah. The learned Judges relied on the case of Moti Singh v. Sobho Mal 32 IC 634. The following passage from the Sindh Chief Court judgment was quoted with an approval:--- "When the issues are remanded by the Court of a second appeal to the Lower Appellate Court for trial, it seems to us that the Lower Appellate Court resumed its functions as the Court of first appeal and though it is the only Court which can record a finding on the issue remanded, yet it may under Rule 28 require additional evidence to be taken before the original Court."
17. On a consideration of this aspect of the case, we are left in no doubt that the remand of a case for disposal on merits ripens the entire case before the statutory functionaries and they are under no fetters. In the present case, the entire matter has been remanded and the argument is available with greater force. In a case which is remitted with a direction for disposal, the statutory functionary has full power and is under a duty to deal with the case on its merits. The dictionary meaning of the word 'remand' is to send back a case to the same Court out of which it came for purpose of having some action on it there. In the present case, the Division Bench had ordered disposal of the case according to law and the plain meaning of the words is to decide it in a manner in consonance with the law by adverting to the merits of case and in accordance with law. It cannot be overlooked that the petitioner has raised several contentions before the Bench.
18. ' Accordingly we allow this- petition, declare the impugned order to be void and quash it and direct the respondent No,1 to implement accordingly the order of remand passed by the Division Bench while allowing the petition previously filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.