2010 PLP 3159 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-6.-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the order dated 26-1-2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Depalpur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 7-1-2010, the petitioner made a statement before the learned trial Court that if the special attorney of the respondents states on oath of Holy Quran that no agreement was executed between the parties, the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff be dismissed.

3. On 26-1-2010, the special attorney of respondents appeared before the court, he accepted the offer of the petitioner and recorded his statement on oath that the suit of the petitioner was false and the respondents never executed any contract/agreement with the petitioner.

4. The learned trial Court in the light of the statement of the special attorney for the respondents dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide order dated 26-1-2010. Meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application before the learned trial Court with the request that the matter between the parties be decided on evidence instead on oath. This application was also dismissed by the learned trial Court with the observation that the petitioner himself had offered the decision on oath and after its acceptance by the respondents, the petitioner could not resile from his offer.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge Depalpur District Okara who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the judgment of the learned trial Court. Hence civil revision.

6. Learned court for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgments passed by both the learned courts below are against the law, facts and circumstances. Further contends that the petitioner was never given proper opportunity of hearing. Further contends that the petitioner made an application to decide the case on the basis of the evidence but without giving any consideration to the application, the impugned suit was dismissed, therefore, the civil revision be allowed, both the judgments passed by the learned courts below be set aside and the learned trial Court be directed to decided the matter on merit.

7. Arguments heard. Record perused.

8. Perusal of order sheet, dated 26-1-2010 of the learned trial Court is relevant for the disposal of controversy between the parties whereby the petitioner himself offered that if the attorney of the respondents states on oath that no agreement was executed by the respondents with the petitioner, then the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff be dismissed. Accordingly, Ameer Din, special attorney of the respondents stated on oath that the suit is frivolous and the respondents-defendants have never executed any agreement with the petitioner. So, in the light of the statement of the special attorney of the respondents on oath, the suit of the petitioner plaintiff was dismissed which shall amount as a consent decree. Thereafter, the petitioner cannot be allowed to resile from his commitment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also miserably failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. Resultantly, the civil revision fails, hence dismissed. M.U.Y./M-461/L Revision petition.