KITABISTAN LTD. IN THE MATTER OF. Versus KITABISTAN LTD. IN THE MATTER OF.

Facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondents, Rehmat Ali and another, filed a suit against the appellant for possession of certain land, through pre‑emption. The suit was dismissed in default. The respondents made an application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed. They, therefore, went in appeal before an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional c District Judge accepted the appeal and ordered restoration of the suit. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Court.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Additional District Judge did not discuss the evidence on record before ordering restoration of the suit and, thus, the appeal was not properly decided. According to the learned counsel two witnesses were examined by the respondents and the same number of witnesses were. produced by the appellant, in rebutal. Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, however, does not refer to the evidence of the said witnesses. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal was not properly decided.

3. Resultantly, I accept this appeal, set aside the order under challenge and remand the appeal to the learned Additional District Judge for fresh decision in accordance with law, There shall be no order as to costs.

4. Needless to say that while re-deciding the appeal the learned Additional District Judge shall discuss the entire evidence on the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant shall appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 20th February, 1992. Since no one has appeared to oppose this appeal, the learned Additional District Judge shall summon the respondents and then proceed further with the appeal.

H.B.T./S‑69/L Appeal accepted