This civil revision has been filed to call in question the judgment and decree, dated 23-9-1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Mian Channu whereby the judgment and decree, dated 6-3- 1998 passed by Mr. Waheed-ud-Din Tariq, Civil Judge, Mian Channu was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that agricultural land measuring 103 Kanals, 7 Marlas situated at Chak No.88/15-L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal was allotted in favour of Muhammad Rafique petitioner and his brother Muhammad Hanif under Islamabad Outsees Scheme on 2-7-1974. Muhammad Hanif the brother of the petitioner died on 30-8-1990 and his share of land was mutated in favour of Muhammad Rafique petitioner. In the life of Muhammad Hanif, defendant No. l had manoeuvred a fictitious power of attorney on behalf of Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Hanif and transferred the property vide Mutation No.54 attested on 10-8- 1970 in favour of defendant No.2 Muhammad Ashraf. Thereafter, defendant No.2 vide Mutation No.121 attested on 17-7-1974 transferred this property in favour of defendant No.6. In the meanwhile the respondent No.4 instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against defendant No. 6 and obtained a consent decree in his favour. Under the decree a registered sale-deed, dated 20- 11-1975 had been executed and the sale was implemented in the record vide Mutation No. 134, dated 12-2-1977 in favour of defendant No.4. Lastly the land in dispute had been mutated in favour of defendants Nos.9 to 12 vide Mutations Nos.291 and 292 sanctioned on 18-1-1987.
3. All the above transactions of the land were not in the knowledge of the petitioner or his brother.
When the petitioner came to know about the whole picture he got registered a case F.I.R. No.245 at Police Station Civil Line, Rawalpindi alleging in the F.I.R. That the power of attorney executed on their behalf was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The deed of attorneyship was sent to the Expert who reported that it was not signed or executed by the petitioner Muhammad Rafique or his brother.
4. The petitioner then instituted a suit for declaration against the execution of power of attorney executed in favour of defendant No.1 which was withdrawn on some technical ground on 23-11-1982 and subsequent suit 'was filed in the Court on 14-4-1992. This suit was dismissed by the Court declaring it barred by time vide judgment and decree, dated 13-9-1992. The abovesaid judgment and decree was challenged through an appeal, which was accepted and the case was remanded on 16-1-1995. After the remand of the case the suit was partly decreed vide judgment and. Decree, dated 6-3-1998. This decree of the Court was challenged through two separate appeals filed by Khalid Masood etc. Respondents Nos. l to 8 and one Atta Muhammad before the Appellate Court.
The judgment end decree of the trial Court was also challenged by Ghulam Abbas etc. Through a revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed on 6-11-1997. The Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and decree accepted the appeal of Khalid Masood etc. And remanded the case for decision afresh and dismissed the appeal filed by Atta Muhammad etc.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the appellants Khalid Masood etc. Were not party in the suit, therefore, no appeal was maintainable on their behalf unless leave to file the appeal is granted by the Court. He relies on case of H.M. Saya & Co., Karachi v. Wazir A.I Industries Ltd., Karachi and another PLD, 1969 SC 65.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the suit was decreed ex pane by the trial Court. He further contended that after the remand the case was transferred from the Court of Mian Imtiaz, Civil Judge to the Court of Mr.. Wajeeh-ud-Din, Civil Judge, Mian Channu, who did not issue any notice to the respondents to pursue the suit after entrustment of the same to his Court. He further contended that the father of: the respondents Khalid Masood etc., Abdullah Jan son of Mausa Khan, case Pathan was defendant No.6 in the suit.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is admitted position that Abdullah Jan was defendant No.6 in the suit before the trial Court and during the pendency of the proceedings he died and Khalid Masood etc. Respondents Nos. l to 8 are his sons and daughters. The appeal was competently filed, even otherwise, a stranger is also competent to file an appeal if he is adversely affected by order passed such suitor proceedings.
9. There is no cavil with the fact that the case was transferred from the Court of Mian Imtiaz, Civil Judge to the Court of Mr. Wajeed-ud-Din, Civil Judge, Mian Channu and it had been observed in case of Inayat Ullah Khan v. Haji Muhammad Ayaz Khan through L:Rs. PLD 1988 Pesh. 33 that on transfer of case by an administrative order after commencement of ex parte proceedings but before passing of ex parte decree. It was incumbent upon original Court to inform all parties including those against whom ex parte proceedings were directed about transfer of case from his Court to transferee Court. Failure to observe this mandatory requirement would render ex parte proceeding liable to be set aside. This principle was also followed by another Judge of Lahore High Court in case of Nemat A.I and others v. Mst. Bakhtawar and others 1995 MLD 484.
10. In the instant case the father of respondents Nos. l to 8 was party in the suit as defendant and during the pendency of the proceedings he died, therefore, respondents being his legal heirs have locus standi to file the appeal. Furthermore, the case was transferred from one Court to another Court and neither transferor Court nor the transferee Court had issued notice to the affected parties to appear in the Court, therefore, the requirement of law was not performed by the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court had validly passed the decree which calls for no interference by this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this petition, which is dismissed, with the direction to trial Court to decide it within four months.