' Judge, Bhakkar vide which he allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dated 31-1-1994 and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for framing additional issue and for determining whether the auction was in accordance with the afore- referred procedure and of prescribed formalities are fulfilled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/ plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit-land having purchased the same through open auction. The private respondents had also filed a suit for declaration qua the same land and challenged, the auction in question and claimed possession. The suit of the private respondents was dismissed whereas the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs was decreed vide the afore-referred judgment and decree which was challenged only by the private respondents and not by the Province of Punjab. He adds that the Province of the Punjab had not challenged the judgment and decree passed in petitioner's favour; that the learned District Judge could not of his own accord direct framing of additional issue; that the vires of the auction in question could have been gone into while deciding Issue No,1 in petitioner's suit; that in the suit filed by the private respondents Issue No,3 was relatable to the auction in question; that the said suit was dismissed, the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree also met the same fate and it was not open for the learned District Judge to frame an issue which in pith and substance is the same Issue No,3 (whether the auction proceedings were forged and fictitious, fraudulent? OPP) and the judgment rendered reflects misreading and non-reading of material evidence on record. He lastly submitted that he will be satisfied if the case is remanded for a decision on merit.
3. Learned counsel for the Province of the Punjab submitted that the learned District Judge could direct framing of additional issue in terms of section 108, C.P.C. Read with Order 41, rule 28, C. P. C .
He, however, in all fairness concedes that the learned District Judge should have rendered the judgment and decree on the issues framed and while deciding Issue No,1 it could go into legality or otherwise of the auction in question as well. In these circumstances, he did not oppose the prayer that the case be remanded and the learned District Judge be directed to decide the appeal on merit.
4. Heard.
5. The learned trial Court had framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for in the headnote of the plaint? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring the suit? OPD
(4) Whether the suit cannot proceed in view of the preliminary objections Nos.2 to 10? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is mala fide? OPD
(6) Whether the relief claimed is undervalued? OPD
(7) Relief.
' While deciding the appeal the learned District Judge has not given any finding on the afore- referred issues although it is conceded by the learned counsel for the Province of the Punjab that there was sufficient evidence to give findings. The question whether the auction on the basis of which petitioners/plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession was a proper and bona fide exercise could be gone into by the Appellate Court while deciding Issue No, 1 . In the afore-referred circumstances, this petition is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge is set aside and the respondent's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31- 1-1994 in the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided on merit. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Bhukkar on 3rd September, 2002.