2023 PLP 1962 (CLC)

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.

Precisely, the respondents instituted a suit for declaration maintaining therein that predecessor in interest of the parties namely Muhammad Ismail was owner of the land measuring 197-Kanals 11-Marlas, situated in Mauza Lakoo, Tehsil and District Khushab, who passed away on 24.09.2016; that the petitioner/defendant No.1 in order to deprive them of their inheritance got attested a gift mutation No.4004 dated 31.07.2015 in his favour in collusion with the revenue officials; that their father neither made any offer of gift nor the same was accepted by the petitioner/defendant No.1. Moreover, father of the parties did not appear before any revenue officer for the sanction of mutation; therefore, the mutation in question is illegal and being ineffective upon their rights is liable to be cancelled. The suit was contested by the petitioner who controverted the averments of the plaint. The defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded. On 24.07.2019, plaintiff No.3 namely Rehana Ishfaq appeared before the learned trial Court and recorded her statement regarding withdrawal of the suit to her extent, so the suit to her extent was dismissed as withdrawn. However, on 02.06.2021, the present petitioner appeared before the learned trial court and recorded his statement on oath that respondents/defendants Nos.1 and 2 are his real sisters, therefore, he has no objection if the suit is decreed upto their extent. The learned trial Court vide impugned order and decree dated 15.12.2021 decreed the suit to their extent by observing that Revenue Officer is authorized to sanction mutation in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of their respective shares from inheritance of Muhammad Ismail after cancellation of impugned mutation No.4004 and to pass a mutation of inheritance relating to inheritance of Muhammad Ismail deceased. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal but it was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022; hence, the instant revision petition.

2. Heard.

3. Admittedly, the impugned order, judgment and decrees have been passed when the petitioner conceded the claim of the respondents Nos.1 and 2; meaning thereby the same is consent decree, where-against no appeal lies; however, there are following exceptions where consent decree is appealable:- l An appeal by a person who was not a party to the compromise; l Where it is alleged that decree is not a decree passed with the consent of parties; l Where the consent decree is alleged to be invalid as for instance where court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter; l Where there is a dispute regarding the nature of compromise; l Where the decree travels beyond the agreement; l Where the consent is given under mistake of fact or obtained by practicing fraud upon the court; l Where there was no compromise at all; l Where the strict requirements of O.XXIII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not satisfied. However, in the present case, no such plea has been agitated rather the present petitioner before the learned appellate Court contended that the petitioner is ready to transfer some land in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs while the whole corpus of land according to gift mutation does not exist on the spot. Therefore, the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court have rightly adjudicated upon the matter in hand and have not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand having no force and substance stands dismissed in limine. IH/A-134/L Revision Petition dismissed.