GHULAM FATIMA Versus BASHIR AHMAD
ORDER
This revision petition is directed, under section _ 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 13‑3‑1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur Division, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Consolidation Scheme of the revenue estate Bonga Akbar Mari, Tehsil Minchanabad; District Bahawalnagar wits confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, on 30‑3‑1986. The petitioners feeling, aggrieved, filed an appeal with a delay of 3 months and 17 days in the court of the Collector (Consolidation) who vide his order dated 28‑6‑1987,‑ accepted the; same. He held in his order that the `wanda' of the petitioners was confirmed ,without obtaining their consent on the scheme. The petitioners had purchased 22 kanals of land from the respondents before Consolidation but during the Consolidation Operations, the wine area was allocated to the respondents. The petitioners were given land. in the middle of the plot of the respondents against the basic principle of Consolidation. He made certain amendments in the `wandas' of the parties. The respondent being dissatisfied, preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) which was accepted vide the impugned order on the basis of mutual compromise arrived at between the parties and the `wandas' of the parties were consequently amended. Now the present petitioners have preferred this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Abdul son of Muhammad, one of the petitioners, was given a wrong impression in the Court of the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and his thumb impression was obtained through fraud on the compromise document filed therein. Abdul had no authority from rest of the petitioners to enter into such a compromise and that a great loss had been caused to the petitioners by the impugned order which may be set aside. In rebuttal (hereof, the learned counsel for the respondent has maintained that no revision was competent against a compromise decree. ‑
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record of the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) from which it appears that Bashir Ahmad son of Ramzan, the present respondent, had filed an appeal against the order dated 28‑G‑19,87 of the Collector (Consolidation), Bahawalpur. with Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 13 others as respondents (the present petitioners) on 13‑7‑1987. The aforementioned Abdul was respondent No.6 in that appeal. This appeal was pursued by one Muhammad Shafi son of Abdul, respondent No‑6, on 13‑9‑1987 and,l.l‑10‑1987. On 15‑11‑1987; Mian Mushtaq Pervaiz Abbasi; Advocate, riled a power of attorney for the respondents and subsequently his attendance was marked on behalf of the respondents in the order‑sheet on 10‑1‑1988 and 14‑2‑1988. On 15‑2‑1988, the parties requested for adjournment for a compromise between the parties. On 13‑3‑1988, both the learned counsel stated that the parties had compromised and their statements were recorded. Abdul respondent was present and he made a statement confirming the compromise between the parties. The document of compromise bears the thumb‑impression of Bashir Ahmad and Abdul and signatures of their respective counsel. From the case record it appears that Abdul had made the statement of his own free will and that, in fact, only he or his son Muhammad Shat had been pursuing the case all along. Abdul was duly qualified to enter the compromise as he had been pursuing the case all along and this view finds support in 1989 SCMR 1872. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the then respondents (present petitioners), by virtue of his power of attorney (Wakalatnama) had full authority under the law to make such a statement before the court. In the instant case, however his instructions regarding compromise are borne out by the statement of Abdul, one of the present petitioner. No irregularity or impropriety is discernible from the case record or the impugned order. The petitioner cannot challenge a consent decree under sections 96(3) and 100 of the Civil Procedure Code based on compromise between the parties. There is no manifest ground for revision under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance read with section 115, C.P.C.
5. In view of the foregoing, I do not rind any merit in the revision petition which is accordingly rejected.
A.A./442/R Revision dismissed.