1999 PLP 1977 (YLR)

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15‑2‑1999 passed by Mr. Atta Ullah Kausar, learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad, whereby he accepted the revision petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.2 against the present petitioners, and remanded the case to the Court below for framing issues in the light of pleadings of parties and also after recording evidence if any to decide the application submitted by the petitioners/defendants for setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, dated 21‑10‑1998, whereby the petition moved by the petitioners/defendants for setting aside the compromise deed was accepted and they were directed to file the written statement.

2. The brief facts are that a suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.2 and respondents Nos.3 to 6 in respect of the disputed property. During pendency of that suit, the present petitioners i.e. defendants Nos.3 to 7 entered a compromise mark 'C' whereby they admitted the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No.2 but later on moved an application for the cancellation of the compromise deed with the prayer that they may be allowed to contest the suit after filing the written statement. The said application moved by the petitioners/defendants was accepted by the learned trial Court and they were allowed to file written statement after setting aside the compromise which had earlier been entered by them. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court, a revision petition was filed as aforesaid by the plaintiff/respondent No.2 which was dismissed vide the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that revision petition was not competent as other defendants in the case were not impleaded as party although they were necessary parties to the suit and the revision petition. Secondly it was contended that certified copies of the pleadings and other documents were not placed on record, while filing the revision petition and as such the same was incompetent. Reliance was placed on Bashir Ahmad v. Abdul Wahid reported as PLD 1995 Lahore 98 and Faquir Muhammad and 48 others v. Province of Punjab through Collector/Deputy Commissioner and 4 others reported as PLD 1993 Lahore 439.

4. I have considered the foregoing submission and find that no objection regarding the maintainability of revision petition on the grounds taken in this petition was raised and as such the same cannot be allowed in this petition particularly when the matter is yet pending and has not finally concluded in the Court below. The remand order passed by the learned revisional Court showed that the compromise allegedly entered by the petitioners/defendants in favour of the plaintiff/respondent was tainted with fraud and misrepresentation. Apparently these pleas could not be gone into at random and required some sort of evidence to sustain them. It is in the light of these facts that 'the learned revisional Court had decided that compromise deed containing admission in favour of plaintiff/respondent could not be readily cancelled without determining the grounds agitated in the petition moved by the petitioners/defendants for cancellation of the aforesaid compromise. The question of fraud and misrepresentation needed factual inquiry for which the learned revisional Court rightly directed the learned trial Court to frame relevant issues before deciding the application for cancellation of compromise deed. In such a situation, the order passed by the learned revisional Court is well within law and the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Court, and would not call for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1122/L Petition dismissed.