1997 PLP 2180 (MLD)

Mian Muhammad Younis Shah for Petitioners. Muhammad Umar Khan assisted by Aziz Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1995. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs‑petitioners (hereinafter called as the petitioners) was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Peshawar on 19‑9‑1995, whereagainst the appeal filed by the petitioners also met the same fate.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit against the defendant‑respondent (hereinafter called as the respondent) for declaration to the effect that the entry of Mutation No. 1647 with regard to the disputed property was void and ineffective against their rights. Perpetual injunction was also sought restraining the respondent from interference in possession of the suit land. The suit was contested by the respondent. The pleading of the parties gave rise to as may as 10 issues including the relief. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioners, where against appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence the present revision petition.

3. The petitioner through C.M. No.480 of 1992 applied that the parties have compromised through elders of the village hence the dispute be decided on the basis of compromise. Respondent resisted this application stating that attempt was made by the parties through elders of the village to settle the matter out of Court, but no settlement could be reached. On 2‑8‑1993 the respondent was confronted with his signature on the compromise, which he owned but stated that the same was fraudulently obtained. In order to ascertain execution of the compromise, the case was referred to Additional District Judge, Peshawar for holding inquiry to that effect and report. His report dated 2‑6‑1994 has been received. He after recording necessary evidence observed in his report that in view of the statements of the Jirga members and the parties, it is evident that the compromise has been effected. He further observed that although Gul Mast respondent in his statement resiled from the compromise but the Jirga members produced by the parties affirmed the factum of the execution of compromise between the parties.

4. In view of the above it is abundantly proved that the parties through the Jirga members have compromised the matter and are thus bound to honour the same. Rule 3 of Order 23, C.P.C. enunciates that where the Court is satisfied that a suit has been adjusted wholly or partly by any lawful agreement or compromise, it shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far it relates to a suit. From the report of the Additional District Judge, Peshawar, I am satisfied that the parties have validly compromised the matter through Jirga members and the Court has to pass a decree in terms thereof, even if one of the parties may resile therefrom. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed in terms of the compromise dated 22‑3‑1987, with no order as to costs. H. B. T./2011/P Revision allowed.