Find a Lawyer

First Appeal from Original Appeal No. 54 of 1985, decided on 46 May, 1986.

‑‑‑O. I, R. 8 & O. XLIII, R. 1(u)‑‑Representative suit‑‑Non‑compliance of legal requirements‑‑ Remand of case‑‑Findings on merits‑‑ Effect‑‑Trial Court decided representative suit without taking into consideration provisions of O.I, R.8, C.P.C.‑‑Appellate Court set aside decision of Trial Court and remanded suit for fresh trial after complying with legal requirements‑‑Appellate Court while remanding suit also recorded findings on merits‑‑‑When suit was to be tried de novo after due notice to all persons concerned, it was, held, not desirable for appellate Court to have decided issues on merits‑‑High Court directed that Trial Court would not be influenced by observations of First Appellate Court while trying and deciding suit.

Sheikh Naveed Shahryar for Appellant.

Mian Sher Alam for Respondent No.1.

S.M. Masood for Respondents Nos. 5 to 8.

Khawaja Saeeduz Zafar for Respondent No.8.

Date of hearing: 4th May, 1986.

This appeal impugns the legality of the remand order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, on the 20th December, 1984. Rasul Bakhsh; respondent 1 brought representative suit but no permission of the trial Court as envisaged by Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was secured nor notice of institution of the suit was given to the persons who had the same interest in the suit. For non‑compliance with the aforesaid provisions of law the learned Additional District Judge set aside the decision of the learned trial Court and remanded the suit for fresh trial after complying with the legal requirements. However, the learned Additional District Judge recorded his finding on merits which has been taken exception to by all the parties. When the suit was to be tried de novo after due notice to all the persons concerned it was not desirable for the learned Additional District Judge to have decided issues on merits. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the observations of the learned Additional District Judge on merits of the case should be treated as non‑existent. The learned trial Court will not be influenced by such observations while trying and deciding the suit. With those observations the remand of the suit is upheld; the appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court at Gujrat on the 20th May, 1986. The parties, are left to bear their own costs.

H. B. T. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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