IRSHAD AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ In this case, the parties have settled the dispute out of Court. They have submitted an application for disposal of the matter in the terms of the compromise. This petition is accordingly converted into an appeal.

2. A Both the learned counsel state that they have satisfied themselves that the compromise is genuine and is not against any law or against any third party. The compromise in the form of Deed oil Compromise placed on record is recorded below.

" DEED OF COMPROMISE

3. "THIS DEED OF COMPROMISE made and executed at Lahore this 6th day of February, 1988, BETWEEN‑

(1) Irshad Ahmad (sons of Khurshid Ahmad, caste Rajput, R/o

(2) Munir Ahmad (village Rakh Malka Hans, Teh. Pakpattan

4. (Sharif, Distt. Sahiwal.

5. (hereinafter called the 'Petitioners', which term, where the context so permits shall apply to their heirs, legal representatives and successors‑in‑interest),

AND

6. Muhammad Anwar Khan s/o Noor Sikandar, caste Rajput Chachada Hinjra, resident of village Rakh Malka Hans, Tehsil Pakpattan Sharif, District Sahiwal, hereinafter called the 'Respondent' (which shall also include his heirs, successors‑in -interest and assigns).

7. WHEREAS the petitioners have filed the captioned petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, against the judgment/decree dated 8‑6‑1987 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Civil Revision No.194 of 1986.

8. AND WHEREAS due to the intervention of the respectables, and well‑washers of the parties, better sense has prevailed between them, and they have reached an amicable and practicable settlement in order to give an end to their disputes, for good and for ever.

9. NOW THEREFORE, THIS COMPROMISE DEED WITNESSETH AS

10. UNDER:‑

(1) That respondent No.2 in the titled leave petition being vendor, a pro forma respondent, and no relief having been claimed against him, be deleted from the array of the respondents.

(2) That the petitioners had purchased the suit land comprising Square No.192, Khasra numbers 6, 15, 16, 25, 26 measuring 32 Kanals, situated in village Rakh Malka Hans, Tehsil Pakpattan Sharif, District Sahiwal from Muhammad Ibrahim, respondent No.2, through Mutation No.1119 on 9‑11‑1979. Muhammad Anwar Khan, respondent No.1, pre‑empted the aforesaid sale on the ground of being the real paternal‑uncle of the vendor, Muhammad Ibrahim, and on account of owner in the village.

(3) That the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Pakpattan Sharif on 9‑4‑1984. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree which was dismissed by the Additional. District Judge, Sahiwal, on 9‑3‑1986, and the revision petition being Civil Revision No.194 of 1986) filed in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, Multan Bench against the said judgments /decrees also failed and was dismissed on 8‑6‑1987.

(4) That the petitioners thereafter filed the titled leave petition in this august Court, which is pending.

(5) That the contesting parties have come to terms outside the Court and have finally agreed that:

(i) The petitioners will remain owners of the suit land described hereinabove, and Mutation No.1119 in their favour attested on 19‑11‑1979 stands restored, meaning thereby, the original sale in favour of the petitioners will remain intact. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below will be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff‑respondent No.1 will stand dismissed and any mutation attested in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent No.1, in consequence of the impugned judgments /decrees shall stand cancelled.

(ii) That the sum of Rs.51,000 deposited by the plaintiff‑respondent will be withdrawn by him from the trial Court and the petitioners will not claim the said amount.

(iii) That the petitioners have fully compensated the plaintiff respondent No.1, by paying the expenses of litigation etc., who has now no claim left whatsoever against the petitioners.

(iv) That the parties be left to bear their own costs, throughout.

11. This appeal (as afore‑converted) is allowed in terms of the compromise. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. M.B.A./I/49/S Appeal allowed.