' Through the impugned judgment dated 20-10-1988, the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar, by accepting the appeal of the respondent, has remanded the case to the trial Court for re- adjudication.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the suit property measuring 51 Kanals, 3 Marlas, on the basis of the sale-deed in his favor and sought permanent injunction against the petitioners from interfering in his possession and forcibly dispossessing him from the suit property. The suit was contested by the petitioners and was dismissed by the learned trial Court; respondent preferred an appeal, and the learned District Judge, through the impugned judgment, had remanded the case. It is held by the Court as under:-- "3 The learned trial Judge has believed the report of the Local Commissioner who also reported that the defendants had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. If this was the matter, then the change having been taken place during the pendency of the suit, status quo ante, had to be restored by the trial Court but the trial Judge had not looked into this aspect of the matter. The status of the parties at the time of filing of the suit has to be taken into consideration, and if a party has forcibly changed such status during the pendency of the suit, then it cannot affect the rights of the parties, therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are hereby set aside and the case is remanded with the direction that the trial Court would hold inquiry as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit-land at the time of filing of the suit and was dispossessed during the B pendency of the suit, in spite of injunction of the Court and if that is so, the respondents have to be punished according to law and the possession for the plaintiff has to be restored "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that there was no justification for the remand of the case; the question about the violation of the order was altogether an independent proceedings, therefore, without seeking the amendment in the plaint and asking for the possession, if the respondent was dispossessed from the suit property--during the pendency of the suit, the respondent could not claim the decree.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find, that the respondent never applied for the amendment of the plaint, seeking possession of the suit property; if he had been dispossessed from the suit property in violation of the status quo order by the Court below. The plaintiff in such situation, should have got his plaint amended and also initiated proceedings under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 2 and 3, C.P.C. This has also not been done, resultantly, in the above circumstances, the Court of Appeal, was not legally correct to have remanded the case, rather should have decided the matter on the basis of the record available to it. Therefore, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree, is set aside and the learned Appellate Court, is directed to decide the matter according to law.