1989 PLP 533 (MLD)

"Q.7.Whether a plaintiff having obtained a decree before 31st July, 1986, a higher forum remanded the case for fresh decision, will be entitled to seek its restoration regardless of the fact whether the matter is pending before the trial or any higher forum. Ans. In the light of the discussion and view on the points involved, the answers to questions Nos.l to 5 are in the negative, while questions Nos.6 and 7 are answered in the affirmative." Since a decree in the present case was passed on 23rd of April, 1985, the respondent is entitled to seek its restoration notwithstanding the remand by the Additional District Judge, in ‑ accordance with the law then prevailing. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners have‑no applicability to the present case. In veiw of what has been stated above, this revision petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T/M‑1145/L Revision dismissed. [Lahore] Before Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J MUHAMMAD YAMEEN KHAN and‑others‑‑Appellants versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent Regular Second Appeal No.25 of 1986, decided on 15th Feburary,1989. ‑‑‑O.XXIII, Rr.1 & 3‑‑Withdrawal of suit‑‑Plaintiff/decree‑holder himself stated before Court that in view of compromise arrived at between him and judgment debtor, suit filed by him should be allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed Suit allowed to be withdrawn in view of statement of plaintiff/decree‑holder and judgm5361entAand and decree passed by Courts below in his favour were set aside. Ijaz Feroze for Appellant. Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1989. Khushi Muhammad, respondent/pre‑emptor/plaintiff is present. He is identified by Mukhtar Ahmad, Advocate, Gujranwala who in turn is identified by Mr. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate. Khushi Muhammad respondent states that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the suit filed by him may be allowed to be withdrawn and be dismissed as withdrawn leaving the parties to bear their own cost. He adds that he is conscious of the fact that by withdrawing the suit, the decree granted in his favour by the learned trial Court and confirmed by learned Additional District Judge will stand set aside and rendered ineffective.

2. In view of above statement of the pre‑emptor/decree‑holder, the judgment and decree dated 27‑6‑1985 of the learned trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 16‑1‑1986 of the learned Additional District Judge are hereby set aside. The suit of the pre‑emptor/respondent is allowed to be withdrawn and is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost. H.B.T./M‑1148/L Order accordingly.