Find a Lawyer

First Appeal from Original Order No. 66 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 1499‑C of 1983, decided on 19th October, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 96 & 115 ‑Appeal from order of remand passed by Additional District Judge not competent ‑Appeal converted into revision.

‑ S. 115‑Revision‑Remand‑First appellate Court setting aside decree and after framing additional issues remanding case o trial Court for giving opportunity to parties for further evidence there under and to send back file to him with finding on additional issues ‑ All additional issues framed by first appellate Court being not unnecessary and evidence already on record not constituting full evidence which parties would like to produce‑Orders passed by first appellate Court, held, were passed to render complete justice, illegality, held, was committed to justify interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Petitioner.

This is a first appeal from the order, dated 12.9‑1983, passed by the Additional District Judge, Multan who set aside the decree and. after framing additional issues remanded the case to the trial Court for giving opportunity to the parties for further evidence thereunder and to send back the file to its Court before 12‑11‑1983 with its finding on the additional issues. The appeal was kept pending and was fixed for hearing on 12‑11‑1983.

2. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration that she was absolute owner in possession of the suit property and that the orders of the revenue Courts transferring it to collaterals of Ghulam Muhammad deceased were void. The trial Court decreed it on 18‑2‑1975. On the appeal of respondents the Additional District Judge held that from pleadings of the parties the trial Court had failed to frame material issues which were necessary for final disposal of the case and after framing additional issues remanded the case with the direction that the trial Court will give opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence and remit the case with his finding thereof.

3. Plaintiff‑petitioner has filed this first appeal from order which is not competent but on request has been treated as a revision against the remand order. It has been contended that the remand order was passed in violation of the established principles without discussing evidence on record and without finding so as to whether sufficient‑ evidence was available or not. It is further contended that the additional issues framed by the learned Additional District Judge are unnecessary and parties had led entire evidence under Issues Nos. 1 and 2 already framed by the trial Court.

4. I have perused the order of the learned Additional District Judge and the additional issues framed by him. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the additional issues so framed are unnecessary. It cannot be said that the evidence already on record constitutes full evidence which the parties would like to produce. The learned Additional District Judge has remanded the case with a direction to provide full opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence which is in keeping with rendering complete justice. The trial Court has also been directed to send back the file to the learned Additional District Judge with its finding on additional issues within about a month and the appeal bas been kept pending. There is no illegality justifying interference in exercise of revisional powers. The contentions raised before me have no force. This revision is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.