' SAGHIR AHMAD, J.--In brief the facts are that one Syed Nazar Hussain Shah filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 27-10-1966 with regard to 850-Kanals and 2-Marlas of land, against Sher Muhammad and others, with the averment that said Sher Muhammad while acting as guardian of his son Saeed Iqbal, agreed to sell said land for a consideration of Rs,28,400 out of which Rs,800 in cash and 20-mounds of wheat valuing Rs,400 were taken as earnest money and remaining were to be received at the time of attestation of mutation. Pursuant to the said agreement to sell the possession of the land was also delivered to the plaintiff. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 i.e, Sher Muhammad and Saeed Iqbal while filing written statement though admitted the agreement to sell and also receipt of the earnest money, yet pleaded that the plaintiff himself was responsible for nonperformance of the said agreement. The remaining defendants Nos.3 to 6 however, vehemently contested the suit by pleading that they were bona fide purchasers of land Measuring 288-Kanals 1-Marla for consideration, through plaintiff No,1 by way of Mutation No,165, dated 21-1-1967. This mutation was also attacked by the plaintiff. The suit was ultimately decreed on 29-5-1968, against which the appeal filed by defendants Nos.3 to 6 was allowed and case was remanded back by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 3-1-1983 after framing of additional issue, for its decision afresh. After remand, the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 24-4-1986 partly decreed the suit only to the extent of recovery of Rs,2200 the amount paid by the plaintiff as earnest money, as such, specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell was refused. This judgment was further assailed by in appeal and during proceedings before the appellate Court Saeed Iqbal respondent appeared before the Court on 21- 6-2002 along with his counsel and made a statement that he has no objection to the decision of the appeal in terms of the compromise. The appellants also got recorded their statement and in terms thereof, the learned District judge vide order, dated 21-6-2002 disposed of the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the appellants in terms of the statements of the parties. Thereafter, Saeed Iqbal the present petitioner moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur to the effect that decision, dated 21-6-2002 had been obtained by the respondents by practising fraud upon the Court, by contending that alleged agreement to sell as well as mutations were forged and fictitious; that Sher Muhammad his father was not authorized to sell his property and that neither the petitioner nor his father ever appeared before any forum for transfer of the property. Further its was averred that his father Sher Muhammad deceased had not been appointed guardian by any Court thus could not sell out the land and that his purported statement of compromise never intends to take off his hands from his entire holding without any consideration. The learned District Judge, Bahawalpur vide impugned order, dated 17-7-2007 after procuring reply to the said application and hearing the parties, dismissed the application, of the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. Hence, this revision petition.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sher Muhammad father of the petitioner was not appointed as Guardian, therefore, could not execute any sale agreement on behalf of the petitioner, that the alleged agreement to sell is not binding upon the petitioner; that decision of the appeal in terms of the compromise is violation of earlier order of this Court; that petitioner could not make a statement to his own detriment; that it was essential for the learned District Judge to have framed issues on the application of the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C.
And after thorough trial should have passed the verdict.
3. Arguments considered. Record perused.
4. So for the contention with regard to the decision of petitioner's application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is concerned, framing of issues or recording of evidence in proceedings under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is not the rule of law, as it is not incumbent B upon the Court to undergo such exercise in every matter under section 12(2), C.P.C. Reliance is placed on the case reported in "Nazir Ahmad v.
Muhammad Sharif and others' 2001 SCM R 46 and "Mst. Nasira Khatoon and another v. Mst. Aisha Bai and 12 others" (2003 SCM R 1050). Furthermore, the available record evidently shows that before different Courts in different rounds, the petitioner and his father Sher Muhammad remained involved and their written statements filed before the Courts, though they posed themselves to contest the suit but they admitted the execution of agreement to sell and also receipt of earnest money and it was for reason that at one stage the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff was decreed as a whole and on the second time it was partly allowed directing the petitioner to return the earnest money. This is nowhere the case of the present petitioner that he never signed the written statement. Furthermore, appointed of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Sohail, Advocate as his attorney is also not denied by the petitioner. Even otherwise, on 21-6-2002 the petitioner himself appeared before the learned first appellate Court and in the presence of his said counsel made a categorical statement that he has no objection to the decision of the appeal in terms of the compromise between the parties, it is thus, obvious and understandable that petitioner being major fully knew the terms of the compromise as well as ultimate effect of his statement on his proprietary rights.
The said statement is not only signed by the petitioner but also by his counsel. This statement of the petitioner being part of the judicial record, carry a presumption of truth. If a party who is otherwise, major and competent to enter into a compromise, voluntarily appears before the Court and makes any statement it is for the said party to safeguard his interest: Even the previous conduct of the present petitioner is indicative of the fact that they were never hotly contesting the suit of the respondent, thus making of such type of compromise statement was well according to the circumstances. The said statement also does not run counter to the factual position, as it is evident, that part of the land which had been sold out to defendants Nos.3 to 6 through Mutation No,165 was kept intact. Furthermore, decision of the appeal in terms of the compromise, in no way, can be said to be violative of earlier direction of this Court for decision of the appeal on merits, as conclusion of any litigation in terms of the compromise is always considered to be its best resolve.
5. For what has been discussed above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, material irregularity or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the learned District Judge, while passing the impugned order. Finding no force in the instant petition, the same is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.