' The relevant facts for the decision of this revision petition are that the respondents filed a suit for possession. The same was contested by the petitioner. The trial Court accordingly framed the following issues:-- Issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree prayed for ? O.P.P.
(2) Whether plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit on account of his own word and conduct? O.P.D.
(3) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action for this suit? O.P.D.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands? 0 P D
(5) Whether the suit is under value for the purpose of court-fee? If so,' what is the current valuation? O.P.D.
(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? O.P.D.
(7) Whether the site plan of disputed property by the plaintiffs is not correct? O. P D
(8) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? O.P.D.
(9) Whether the plaintiffs have filed the suit with ulterior motive? O.P.D.
(10) Whether the defendant has become owner of the disputed property on account of adverse possession for the period of more than twelve years? 0 P D (9-A) Whether Sardar Bibi is a fictitious lady as the Sardar Bibi had already been died on 30-11- 1950? O.P.D.
(10-A) Whether defendant has become co-owner after the death of his father? If so, its effect?
O.P.D.
(11) Relief.
2. The respondents examined Hakam Ali as P.W.1, Munshi as P.W.2 while respondent No,1 appeared as P.W.3. The petitioner examined Muhammad Shafi as D.W.1 Niamat Ali as D.W.2 and himself appeared as D.W.3.
3. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 26-7- 1989 which was assailed by the petitioner through an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kasur. The same was accepted vide judgment, dated 27-2-1990 and Issue No,9-A was added and the case was remanded for fresh decision. The suit was once again decreed vide judgment, dated 17-2-1991. The petitioner once again filed appeal which was accepted vide judgment, dated 24-7- 1993. This time Issue No,10-A was added and the case was remanded. On additional issues the petitioner examined Mian Muhammad -Latif as D. W.4 and himself appeared as D.W.5 while the respondents examined Salamat Ali as P.W.4 and Hadayat one of the respondents appeared as P.W.S. The trial Court after hearing the arguments once again decreed the suit vide judgment dated 31-5-1994 which was assailed through appeal by the petitioner. The same came up on the file of Mr. Muhammad Anwar Naseem the then Additional District Judge, Kasur. The same was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 17-2-1997. Now this revision petition.
4. The notices were issued to the respondents but nobody has entered appearance today on their behalf, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court is no adjudication of the rights of the parties and is not a judgment in the eye of law.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge are contained in para. 8 wherein after referring to the earlier decisions and remand orders he proceeded to record his findings as under:-- "thus, I see no illegality in the finding of learned trial Court on any of the issues, therefore, I uphold the findings of the learned trial Judge as legal and gift has also been cogently proved by the respondents through cogent evidence on record."
Thereafter, he proceeded to dismiss the appeal. He has neither referred to the points urged by the petitioner and noted by him in Para.5 of this judgment nor referred to any evidence. This cannot be called a judgment in the eye of law and in this behalf I may refer to the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 read with Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C. And to the judgments reported as Juma Khan v. Mst. Shamim and 3 others 1992 CLC 1022 and Syed Farzand Raza Rizvi v. Syed Zaheer Mustafa 1998 MLD 463.
7. The upshot of this discussion is that the impugned judgment and decree is set aside by accepting this revision with no order as to costs. The result is that the appeal would be deemed pending before the learned District Judge, Kasur who shall decide the same in accordance with law.