' Against judgment and decree dated 16-5-1964 passed by the learned trial Court, a first appeal was filed by twelve persons including Mst. Ghulam Fatima widow of Qadir Baldish. They had engaged a learned counsel namely Mr. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate. On 26-11-1964, an application was filed on behalf of the said appellants through their learned counsel, stating that a compromise had been entered into between the parties and the appeal be decided in accordance with the same.
The learned District Judge, Multan, recorded the statements of some of the appellants as also Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Ansari, Advocate and also the learned counsel for the respondents and some of the respondents, who affirmed that the compromise had been entered into and the decree of the trial Court be modified in accordance with the compromise. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the compromise deed was made a part of the decree.
2. On 14-11-1982, the petitioner, who according to the pedigree-table drawn by him, is a great grand son of said Mst Ghulam Fatima, filed an application under section 12 (2), C.P.C., stating that a fraud had been played upon the said lady and that the said decree based on the said compromise be set aside. The application was contested by the clients of Malik Hafeez Ahmad. The matter was heard by a learned ADJ, Multan, who dismissed the said application on 3-4-1986.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a DB judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Yasin and others v. Wali Muhammad and others (PLD 1983 Lahore 253) and Alam Ali and another v. Distict Judge, Multan and 3 others (PLD 1983 Lahore 278) urges the matter could not have been decided without framing issues and recording evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that there is no denial in the application that Mr Ijaz Ahmad Ansari, Advocate, was not the counsel for the said lady in the said case or that he had not filed the application or that he had not made the said statement before the learned District Judge when the appeal was decided on 27-11-1964 and in this view of the matter, there was no need to frame any issue.
4. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel. It is a matter of record that the lady and then her two daughters and then her grand son Muhammad Afzal never challenged the said decree. Munir Ahmad petitioner, however, opted to file the said application eighteen years after the event. Now I have already stated above that the compromise application was filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, including the said lady namely Mst Ghulam Fatima. He gave a statement and affirmed the compromise and it was thereafter that the learned DJ proceeded to allow the appeal of the appellants including the said lady and to amend the decree passed by the learned trial Court in accordance with the compromise. I have examined the judgments relied upon by Mian Sharias-ul-Haq Ansari, Advocate, and 'found that the same are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now expressed the view that it is not at all necessary for the learned trial Court to frame issues in each and every case coming under section 12 (2) C.P.C. And to hold a trial. In the circumstances somewhat similar to those of the present, their lordships in the case of Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Sharif and others (2001 SCMR 46) held that it was not at all required to frame issues and hold an inquiry. A similar view was expressed in the case of Amiran Bibi and others v. Muhammad Ramzan and others (1999 SCMR 1334). I, therefore, do not find any case being made out for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.