Summary decision

Plaintiffs filed pre-emption suit wherein they submitted agreement between the parties to the suit and prayed for the decision of the same on the basis of settled terms of agreement and in alternative prayed for additional evidence

Factum of execution of settlement was denied by the defendants-respondents and plaintiffs-petitioners moved another application for comparison of signatures and thumb-marks and by means of another application, the agreement purported to have been arrived at in between the parties before a `Jirga' was prayed to be put to the defendant for its admission and in addition to such applications, another application under Art.163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was also moved for decision of the suit on special oath

Applications were dismissed concurrently

Validity

When application intimating the settlement in between the parties was brought before the court in any suit, then it was incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself as to the execution and existence of compromise and when question arose as to whether or not , there had been a compromise in between the parties, the same had to be decided after regular inquiry by taking evidence and rejection of such application summarily was not proper and refusal to enter into such inquiry would in fact militate against the letter and spirit of the provisions contained in O.XXIII, R.3, C.P.C. as under the said provision of law, recording of compromise was not a formality but a mandatory one, as such, order had been made appealable in terms of O.XLIII, R.1(m) C.P.C.

Courts below had not exercised their jurisdiction vested in them and had committed illegality in dismissing the applications moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners

Order of the Trial Court, as well as, the judgment of the Appellate Court were declared illegal and the same were set aside

Appellate Court before whom application for decision of the suit on the basis of settlement was moved, was directed to hold regular inquiry as to the execution and existence of the compromise in between the parties by granting ample opportunities to both the parties to produce their version and then to decide the same by means of speaking order.