' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---On 2-2-1982, the applicant Wazir Ali filed a suit for the pre-emption against Muhammad Din son of Kamal Din (revision petitioner No,1) and Noor Din (the predecessor- ininterest of revision petitioners Nos.2 to 8). The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 14-9- 1985. The vendees/ judgment-debtors filed an appeal against the above, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court on 21-6-1986. Against these two decisions, the respondents (revision petitioners), on 3-12-1986, filed a civil revision before this Court, to which objections were raised by the Office. It is strange that for a very long period of time the petition remained under objections, when after the removal of the same it was re-filed on 30-9-1999 and was then numbered. The revision petition, for the first time, came up for hearing before the Court on 8-11-1999, when the following order was passed:- "Mr. Muhammad Hayat Qasmi, Advocate, for Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate, for the petitioners.
' Muhammad Younas, Special Attorney of the respondent with Malik Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate.
' It is mutually stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties. The respondent has no objection if by accepting the revision petition the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed.
(2) In the light of above, this revision petition is accepted, the judgments and decrees impugned are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs. Original power of attorney is placed on record."
2. Through the present application under section 12(2), C.P.C., it is alleged by Wazir Ali, the applicant/decree-holder, that he has not entered into any compromise with the revision petitioners; that the revision petitioners have procured the order dated 8-11-1999 through fraud and misrepresentation; he has neither appointed Muhammad Younas as his special attorney nor has engaged Malik Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate. The respondents replied to the above, who in categorical and unequivocal terms state that Muhammad Younas was appointed as attorney the applicant Wazir Ali, who entered into a compromise with the respondents and it is in pursuance of the said compromise that the order dated 8-11-1999 was passed. Anyhow, in view of the factual controversy between the parties, the following issue was framed:- "Whether the order dated 8-11-1999 has been procured by the respondents through fraud and misrepresentation."
3. In pursuance of the above, Wazir Ali has appeared as AW-1 and in categorical terms stated that he had never appointed Muhammad Younas as his special attorney; the power of attorney was forged and some fictitious person has appeared as attorney on his behalf. This statement is corroborated by the statement of AW-2 Muhammad Sharif. Besides, the applicant has also produced the following documentary evidence:-- ' Exh.A.1 Copies of the orders of the High Court.
' Exh.A.2 Copy of the C.R. No,1521.
' Exh. A .3 Copy of the application (C.M. No,1266-C of 2002) filed by Muhammad Akbar Cheema, Advocate.
' Exh.A.4 Copy of the written reply on behalf of the respondents.
' Exh.A.5 Copy of the application (C.M. No,1133-C of 2002) under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by Ghulam Yasin Tahir, Advocate.
' Exh.A.6 Copy of the order dated 14-3-2000 passed by the A.C./Collector, Kasur.
' Exh.A.7 Copy of the Purchase Agreement.
' Exh.A.8 Original Identity Card of Wazir Ali .
' As against the above, the respondents examined Muhammad Din as RW-1, Habib Ullah as RW-2 and Khushi Muhammad as RW-3. They have also produced the copy of the registered Sale-deed No,5514 as Exh.R.1 and copy of the Mutation No,528 as Exh.R.2.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There are specific assertions by the applicant in his statement, who has earned a favourable decrees from the two forums below, that he has not appointed Muhammad Younas as his attorney to pursue or compromise the matter and some fictitious person was produced by the respondents/revision petitioners to procure the impugned order. This has discharged his initial burden of proving the issue. The onus thereafter, switched over to the respondents, who are the beneficiary of the order and thus, were obliged to produce Muhammad Younas, the attorney, who appeared before this Court on behalf of the applicant to prove that he was validly appointed and had the necessary authority to compromise the matter on behalf of the applicant, but this has not been done; besides, to prove the disputed power of attorney, the attesting witnesses of the document have also not been examined. Malik Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate should have also been examined to prove as to how he was engaged; upon whose instruction he appeared before the Court and made the conceding statement, but this has not been so done. From the record, it transpires that Muhammad Younas was not appointed as the attorney by the applicant through any registered document. Though, in the order dated 8-11-1999, it is mentioned that the original power of attorney has been placed on the record, but this again is not available. No effort has been made by the respondents to prove the valid execution of the power of attorney by the applicant Wazir Ali in favour of Muhammad Younas and necessary evidence in this behalf has not been led by the respondents. Wazir Ali is not even shown to have been ever served in the main revision petition. Thus, in the light of above, it can safely be held that when Muhammad Younas is not established by the respondents to have been appointed as attorney by the applicant Wazir Ali to appear on his behalf or to engage Malik Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate, and to make the statement about any compromise; the impugned order has been procured by the respondents, who are the beneficiary of the order, through fraud and misrepresentation, especially when no written compromise or the power of attorney in original or a copy thereof has been brought on the record by the respondents. Therefore, I am convinced that a fraud has been practiced upon the applicant, obviously by the respondents in procuring the order/judgment dated 8-11-1999, which cannot sustain and is hereby set aside.
5. Resultantly, the main revision petition stands revived. Let it be fixed for hearing on 24-7-2006.
Revision restored.