' Under revision before this Court is the impugned order, dated 21-1-2002 of the Presiding Officers, Revenue Appellant Court, Mardan, which has been assailed by the petitioner named above. The genets of the instant case is as follows: The present petitioner instituted a suit for rendition of accounts in the Court of Tehsildar, Swabi against the present respondents which was decreed in his favour for Rs,6,646,049 on Batai Bahisa Soyam vide order dated 20-6-1992. The respondent Mr. Sahibzada went in appeal against it to the Court of Collector, Swabi who remanded it vide his order, dated 4-7-1993 to the lower Court for fresh trial on the plea that Patwari Halqa had not visited the fields at the time of preparation of Girdawari which he conducted it in his Patwar Khana.
The trial Court i.e, Tehsildar, Swabi on fresh trial vide his order, dated 15-6-1999 dismissed the suit en the plea that suit for rendition of account cannot be entertained on the ground that the harvest inspection was not carried out by the Patwari Halqa on the spot so it was impossible to determine who actually cultivated the land and what kind of crops were harvested. By way of advice, the trial Court also observed that this was a trespass case and the petitioner should have instituted a suit for possession and mesne profit in the competent Court of civil jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act and the C.P.C. The petitioner then went in appeal against that order to the Collector, Swabi who dismissed it vide his order, dated 23-11-2000. He then knocked the door of Presiding Officer,.
Revenue Appellate Court, Mardan but there too he failed when Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Mardan dismissed his revision vide his order, dated 21-1-2002. Hence the present revision.
2. Record of the case was perused and written argument of the learned counsel for the parties looked into. Let me at the very outset observe that the impugned order of the learned Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Mardan is a very sketchy order. It does not come within the definition of a speaking order. Incontrovertible documentary evidence exist which was eloquent of the fact, that there simply does not exist any question of title which the trial Court alluded to in its order, dated 15-6-1999. While in para. Last on page 2 of his order, dated 15-6-1999, the Tehsildar, Swabi quotes the learned counsel for the present respondent having said that relationship of landlord/tenant does not exist between the parties, in the written arguments before me, he admits it. Evidence also exists which proves that the findings of the Commission of Mr. Shah Hussain, Advocate enjoyed the confidence and concurrence of both the parties, what prevented the trial Court -in implementing the report of that Ahle-Commission is inexplicable. For the trial Court has neither discussed the Ahle-Commission's report on merit nor has given any reason for disbelieving it. These are some of the facts which the Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Mardan should have taken note of which he had not. For the foregoing reason, I set aside the impugned order, dated 21-1-2002 of Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Mardan and direct the trial Court to implement Ahle-Commission's report in question referred to above.