This judgment will decide F.A.O. No.25 of 1996 which calls in question remand order, dated 21-3-1996 passed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Liaqatpur.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Muhammad Hayat and others, appellants herein, filed a suit for declaration of title which was contested on merit. After issues and evidence the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit on 10-10-1992.
3. Feeling aggrieved respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge who remanded the case to the Trial Court for decision after framing of additional issues.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Additional District Judge mechanically remanded the case on the ground that the exhibit mark did not bear the Seal and Stamp of the Court and that an issue was not framed. Learned counsel submitted that this was no ground to remand the case. Non-signing of the exhibits was only a procedural irregularity which could not vitiate the proceedings.
5. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents despite notice, hence proceeded against ex parte.
6. From the perusal of the record it is discernible that the learned Civil Judge, recorded evidence, and gave detailed judgment, discussing the entire evidence on all the important issues. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, adopted a novel way of escaping his duties by finding fault with the exhibit mark on the ground that the same were not stamped or initialled. This was only procedural irregularity which in no way could vitiate the proceedings or affect the admissibility of the document. Another reason which prevailed upon the learned Additional District Judge was that an issue was not framed. This in itself could not be a reason for remand of the case. Under Order 41, Rules 24 and 25, C.P.C. The Court of appeal can frame additional issue and if necessary record further evidence and thereafter to decide the appeal on merit instead of remanding the case. The framing of additional issue, in itself could not be the basis for remand of the case unless the judgment is reversed.
7. The remand order, passed by learned Additional District Judge is, therefore, perfunctory and suffers from legal infirmities.
8. There was sufficient evidence on the record which covers the entire controversy. Even if additional issue was to be framed, the Appellate Court should have recorded additional evidence and decided the appeal instead of remanding the case.
9. For the reasons above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned remand order is set aside, with the result that the appeal of respondents shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Additional District Judge, who may frame additional issue, allow opportunity of further evidence to the parties and decide the appeal afresh, on merit and in accordance with law, within six months.
H.B.T./M-615/L