' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment, dated 24-9-2001 of the learned Single Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the same was accepted.
2. Precisely stated, the facts are that one Shan Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of *respondents Nos.1 to 11 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of land measuring 56 Kanals, 10 Marlas at Sahiwal, Tehsil Shah Pur, District Sargodha in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sargodha. Fattu the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.12 to 20 namely, Muhammad Yamin, Muhammad Yasin, Mst. Haleeman Bibi, Mst. Sakeena Bibi, Mst.
Sardaran Bibi, Mst. Gulzaran Bibi, Mst. Satara Bibi and Mst. Karam Bibi also filed suit for declaration alongwith consequential relief mentioning that they were owners in possession of land measuring 20 Kanals, 10 Marlas in the same area and that allotment in favour of said Shan Muhammad was void. Both the suits were consolidated and the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha vide judgment dated 26-2-1989 partly decreed the suit of respondents Nos.1 to 11 to the extent of 3 Kanals; but regarding the remaining claim the suit was dismissed. The suit of respondents Nos.1 to 11 was decreed except the above mentioned three Kanals of land. The above judgment was assailed in five separate appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha who vide judgment dated 17-6- 1990 remanded the case and the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha after remand, decreed the suit of respondents Nos.1 to 11 (titled as Muhammad Younas etc. v. Province of Punjab etc.) whereas dismissed that of respondents Nos.12 to 20 (titled as Muhammad Yamin v. Province of Punjab etc.) on 15-2-1993. The three appeals were filed challenging the abovesaid judgment and the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha vide judgment dated 7-11-1998 again remanded the case. This order was assailed in Civil Revision No,1935 of 1998 and the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore vide order dated 24-9-2001 allowed the revision, set aside the remand order and further directed the 1st Appellate Court to decide the appeals in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
3. We have heard Sh. Naveed Shaharyar, learned Advocate Supreme Court on 'behalf of the petitioners as well as Muhammad Younis, respondent No,1 in person and have gone through impugned judgment as well as record of proceedings in minute particulars.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the application for production of additional evidence filed by Muhammad Younis etc. Defendants Nos.2-A to 2-D was accepted by the learned trial Court and they were allowed to produce additional evidence without giving any opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioners to which they were legally entitled. While emphasising he stated that the above mentioned defendants closed their side on 4-1-1993 after the evidence on additional issues was concluded and the case was fixed for final arguments on 9-1-1993. On this date' respondents Nos.2-A to 2-D and defendants Nos.2-A to 2-D again preferred another application for permission to produce additional evidence and examine D.W. Muhammad Younis which was allowed on 10-1-1993 and said Muhammad Younis accordingly was examined on 13-1- 1993 but no opportunity to produce the additional evidence in rebuttal was afforded to the petitioners' side. He lastly argued that remand order dated 7-11-1998 of learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha is not only perfect but is justified, according to which the petitioners have been afforded an opportunity to adduce additional evidence in rebuttal. But the learned High Court while directing the Appellate Court to decide the appeal of petitioners has not adverted to the above aspect of the case and did not advance any cogent reasons.
5. On the other side, respondent No,1 appeared in person and supported the impugned judgment of learned High Court and stated that it has been rightly passed after considering every aspect of the case.
6. Admittedly the parties have been litigating since long and had brought their litigations twice up to the level of High Court, as such, we do not find it proper to further remand the matter to the trial Court for the purpose of adducing evidence in rebuttal, as urged. However, while maintaining the impugned judgment we direct learned 1st Appellate Court to decide the appeals in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible after affording both the parties an opportunity of hearing.
' Resultantly, we are not inclined to grant leave, thus the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.