ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J. - This revision petition impugns the judgment dated 21.2.1990, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 9.2.1988, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Sheikhupura, who had decreed the suit of the respondents.
2. The respondents who are plaintiffs were seeking declaration about their ownership and possession in the disputed piece of land measuring about 17 Marlas located in Mauza Jewanpura Khurd, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, the description of which they have provided in the plaint. It was further their case that the revenue Mutations Nos. 201, 202 and 623, which were sanctioned on 7.2.1970, were against law and facts, without notice to them and of no value. As an alternate relief they asked for permanent injunction protecting their possession.
2-A. The learned Trial Court had framed eight issues in this case. From the plaintiffs' side both oral and documentary evidence was produced. However, from the present petitioners' side only documentary evidence was produced and that too through the statement of their counsel. The learned Trial Court has mentioned the reasons regarding the delay which was caused by the present petitioners in adducing the evidence and dragging its feet in this connection. The suit was therefore, decreed against them on the basis of the evidence available On the file.
3. The learned First Appellate Court described the judgment of the learned Trial Court as whimsical.
The Appellate Court was also of the view that there was documentary evidence, whatever, was produced by the present petitioners' side and, that ought to have been looked into and appreciated which was not done. The following remarks reflected in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment are reproduced in extenso:- "It was of course the duty of the learned Court to consider all the documents produced by the defendants in support of their case especially when the fate of the case, in the facts and circumstances of the case was determinable only on the documentary evidence including the revenue record."
4. In paragraph No. 5 of the judgment the learned First Appellate Court adverted to an application moved by the present respondents who were appellants before the learned Additional District Judge made under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC for production of documentary evidence and gave the following findings:- "I have gone through the contents of the application and also seen the documents. These of course could be helpful in the just and final decision of the case between the parties. I am, therefore, inclined to allow the application especially in view of the fact that the case is even otherwise being remanded for its decision afresh in accordance with law. The defendants would adduce these documents before the learned lower Court. They are also permitted to get examined one of the defendants into the witness-box."
5. It has been argued that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge offended the provisions of-Order 41, Rule 31. CPC inasmuch as that the learned Judge did not discuss the issues One by one nor the important points which required determination and after dubbing the judgment of the learned Trial Court as whimsical made up its mind to remand the case.
6. The second objection is with respect to the acceptance of the application made under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC allowing additional evidence to be adduced. In this connection it was said that the present respondents had lost valuable opportunities for production of their evidence before the Trial Court. They also failed to tile the application for additional evidence at the earliest opportunity which was available to them at the time of filing of the appeal. They moved the application nearly after a year which reflects upon the conduct of the present respondents.
7. It appears that while criticizing the judgment of the learned Trial Court the First Appellate Court itself got trapped. It forgets that it was also its duty to read the documentary evidence, which had been overlooked by the Trial Court. And if that evidence had a bearing on the case the Court of first appeal ought to have considered those documents itself for deciding the case instead of remanding it.
8. Regarding the question of production of additional evidence the learned First Appellate Court took this matter rather too lightly and became oblivious of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, CPC as well as the conduct of the present respondents which was reflected in the judgment of the Trial Court. Thus, the learned Appellate Court did not reflect in the judgment the grounds which satisfied him and showed a good cause of non- production of the documents at an early stage.
9. This Court regrets to note once again the tendency of remanding the cases by the Appellate Courts to the lower Courts without there being reasons for doing so. In this case the learned Additional District Judge himself came to the conclusion that the fate of the present case was determinable on the basis of the-documents produced. But failed to determine the case itself.
10. On the question of production of additional evidence this Court has always been that an additional opportunity for filling up gaps left in evidence at trial stage is not to be permitted.
Reliance is placed upon Said Rasool and 8 others v. Suhedar Aamir Zaman and 11 others (1987 CLC 1582 and Pardool and 7 others v. Sattar Khan (1988 CLC 22).
11. The summary disposal of appeal and without writing findings on all the points involved in the appeal call for correction by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon Sahib Jan v. Ahmad Khan, etc. (1990 ALD 493); Wazir Khan v. A. Aziz Burney and 2 others (1992 M LD 1758) and Syed Farzand Raza Rizvi v. Syed Zaheer Mustafa (1988 M LD 463).
12. For the foregoing reasons this Court sitting in its visitorial jurisdiction would like to take curative steps in setting aside the judgment under appeal and in returning the case to the learned Additional District Judge with direction that he may decide the case while keeping in view the provisions of Order 41, Ride 31 of the CPC. In case it considers allowing the respondents the production of additional evidence it may receive the additional evidence itself instead of asking the Trial Court for the needful. Since this revision petition is pending since 1990 the best thing would be in asking the learned District Judge to either hear this case afresh himself or transfer it to any other Additional District Judge. The learned First Appellate Court is further directed to .Ensure early disposal of this case being an old matter. The tilt; shall be placed before the learned District Judge on the 25th of October, 2000 and the parties shall be summoned for the purposes of appearance before the appropriate Court.