' On 29-3-1995, respondent No,4 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 3. In the plaint, it was stated that respondent No,4 is a resident of Chunian and depends for his livelihood on the buffalo whose milk he sells in the market; that the petitioner has obtained an electric connection from respondents Nos.1 to 3 for his residence; that the electric wire leading to the house of the petitioner was not in a proper order and no care was taken by the petitioner or the respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the matter: The result was that on 16-3-1995, the said electric wire broke and came to lie on the ground on 16-3-1995. No warning was given by the petitioner and the result was that when the buffalo was taken out it came in contact with the said live wire and died.
' He claimed a sum of Rs,24,000 as damages from the defendants in the suit. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 placed responsibility on the shoulder of the petitioner with the plea that he had not informed them about the said wire fallen on the ground. The petitioner in his turn while denying the incident stated that the responsibility of the official respondents to take care of the matter could not be put on him. On 27-2-1996, the case was taken up when the petitioner as well as respondent No,4 were present and the learned trial Court proceeded to record the better statements. Respondent No,4 stated that his buffalo died being electrocuted by the wire leading to the house of the petitioner and it was his responsibility to have-. Informed the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and that he be awarded damages. The petitioner stated that no wire leads to his house and there is no meter installed in name of the petitioner and the case against him be rejected. The learned trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to pass a very strange order. The order narrates that examination of the plaint shows that the damage has been caused to respondent No,4 because of the wire leading to the house of the petitioner but even if this contention is admitted as correct, there is no case against the petitioner and that the suit is dismissed as against him and his name is deleted. Thereafter, the case proceeded against respondents Nos.1 to 3. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide a judgment and decree dated 14-4-1999 the suit was decreed against respondents Nos.1 to 3. A decree sheet was also prepared. Against the said decree respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a first appeal in which the petitioner was also impleaded as respondent. The appeal came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Chunian, District Kasur. The learned Additional District Judge, Chunian came to the conclusion that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in deleting the name of the petitioner. He further found that the, entire evidence on record from both the sides proceeds against the petitioner. He found that there is no evidence against respondents Nos.1 to 3. He accordingly set aside the decree and directed the learned trial Court to proceed with the suit against the petitioner while respondents Nos.1 to 3 were deleted from the array of defendants. This was done vide a judgment and decree dated 23-4-2001.
2. The civil revision was admitted to hearing vide an order dated 26-6-2001 and notice was issued in the said matter. In response whereto respondents are present.
3. After having examined the record, the learned counsel for the petitioner was put on notice as to why the admission order be not recalled. The learned counsel contends that since the suit was dismissed against the petitioner vide an order dated 27-2-1996 and the respondent No,4 never challenged the said order, the impugned order is without, lawful authority. The learned counsel for respondent No,4, on the other hand, contends that order was illegal and no decree sheet was prepared and as such an appeal could not be filed.
4. 1 have already referred to the proceedings which took place in the trial Court above. To my mind, there was no occasion at all for the learned trial Court to have dismissed the suit against the petitioner dither upon an examination of the plaint or in view of the better statements. I have already reproduced these statements above. Respondent No,4 has never stated that the petitioner is not responsible. The plaint also reveals specific allegations against the petitioner. There was thus no grounds for dismissal of the suit when the trial has yet to take place.
5. As to the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I do find that no decree sheet was prepared regarding the dismissal of the suit against the petitioner and as such respondent No,4 could not have filed an appeal against the same. Be that as it may, the petitioner was a party to the appeal. There is no allegation either in the memorandum of revision or at the bar that he was not served or was proceeded against ex parte in a manner not warranted by law.
This being so, all the parties were before the learned Court of appeal and to my mind, the impugned order is fully justified and otherwise within the domain of the learned Additional District Judge exercising powers in accordance with section 96 read with Order XLI, C.P.C. This is an apt case where powers in accordance with Order XLI, rule 33 ought to have been exercised accordingly.
6. I may further note here that the learned Additional District Judge has not made any adverse observations on the merits of the case. He has four that the petitioner was a necessary party and could not have been deleted and that the suit is to continue against him. He has directed the learned trial Court to make a fresh decision of course after considering the evidence to be led by the parties i,e, respondent No,4 and the petitioner. Needless to state that the learned trial Court shall comply with the said directions of the learned Court of Appeal and decide the matter in the light of the evidence to be recorded in the case.
7. For the afore stated reasons, I recall the admission order and dismiss the civil revision without any orders as to costs.
8. The parties i,e, petitioner and the respondent No,4 shall now appear before the learned trial Court at Chunian, District Kasur on 20-5-2002. The learned trial Court then shall proceed further in the matter, as directed by the learned Court of Appeal.