' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Reference to the pleaded facts for the purpose of this judgment would not be necessary. Suffice it to say that both the contesting ladies are sisters. On 27-4-2002 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner seeking declaration, that she is exclusive owner of the land measuring S23-1/4 kanals mentioned in the plaint and that the petitioner has no concern, as she had transferred her shaVe to the respondent by means of oral sale and exchange. The suit was hotly contested by the petitioner. Issues were framed. On 17-2-2005 Muhammad All Raza son and special attorney of the respondent appeared in the witness box as P.W-1, his examination- inchief was recorded. Thereafter it was noted that he proposed that in case Dr. Javed Hayat son of the petitioner appears in Court and takes oath on Holy Quran that he did not receive Rs, 5,50,000 from the respondent in relation to transfer of the suit land to her as part payment, suit of the respondent be dismissed and in case Dr. Javed Hayat refuses to take oath the suit be decreed. On the said date general attorney of the petitioner and her counsel were present and they accepted the said offer. The case was adjourned to 3-3-2005 for appearance of Dr. Javed Hayat.
2. On 3-3-2005 the case was taken up in the presence of one Sajjad Hussain, clerk of the counsel for respondent, Muhammad Hayat husband of the petitioner and his counsel. It is noted that Dr. Javed Hayat is present in person. His statement was recorded on oath of Holy Quran. The suit was dismissed on the same date. The respondent filed a first appeal which has been allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, who set aside the said dismissal and remanded back, the case vide order, dated 25-6-2005 for deciding the suit after recording evidence of the parties on merits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Additional District Judge has acted without jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. As according to him the offer had been duly made by the respondent and accepted by the petitioner and learned trial Court had very correctly recorded statement of Dr. Javed Hayat on oath and decided the case accordingly. Further contends that in the absence of any reason stated or cause shown for non- appearance of the respondent/her attorney or counsel on 3-3-2005, the reasons stated by the learned Additional District Judge are not at all justifiable. Learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned order with reference to the case of Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs v. Mst. Nazira Bibi and 4 others (2007 CLC 1874). It in its turn is based on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmad Khan and others v. Jewan (PLD 2002 SC 655) and Muhammad Ali v. Major Muhammad Aslam and others (PLD 1990 SC 841). According to learned counsel the proceedings, dated 17-2- 2005 were coram non judice in the light of the said law.
4. I have gone through the copies of the record with assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already detailed above the proceedings that took place before the learned trial Court on 17-2-2005 and 3-3-2005. The learned Additional District Judge has stated that the statement on oath was not recorded in presence of the respondent or any authorized agent or her counsel. To my mind, this reason is neither here nor there. The reason being that 3-3-2005 was fixed in the presence of all concerned for summoning Dr. Javed Hayat and recording his statement as offered by the said attorney of the respondent. No cause has been stated for absence of the respondent, her attorney or her counsel for not appearing before the Court on 3-3-2005. The second reason stated by the learned Additional District Judge is that attorney of the respondent had no authority to make the said offer. I am afraid on plain reading of the special power of attorney Exh.PI the attorney had the authority to make the said offer. However, the learned Additional District Judge has correctly said that the statement made by the said Dr. Javed Hayat was not in accord with offer of the attorney of the respondent. This is apparent upon plain reading of the offer recorded on 17-2-2005 and accepted by the petitioner and statement recorded on 3-3- 2005.
5. So far as the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I find that no such plea was raised at any time after the recording of the said offer or before the learned first appellate Court. However, the essential facts attracting the proposition of law laid down in the judgments noted above are apparent on the face of record. The statement of Muhammad Ali Raza attorney and son of the respondent was partly recorded i.e, his examination-in-chief was recorded thereafter following note was made " {{URDU TEXT}}" The recording of statement was stopped at this stage and then learned counsel proceeded to record the said offer of the attorney of the petitioner whose age is recorded as 35 years. To my mind, the observations of their lordships in the said case of Muhammad Ali (PLD 1990 SC 841) which were approved in the said case of Ahmed and others (PLD 2002 SC 655) are fully applicable in the circumstance of the present case. The haste with which the learned trial Court proceeded would be evident from the fact that it failed to note that the statement of Dr. Javed Hayat recorded by him is not in accord with the offer made by the attorney of the respondent. Tlie civil revision is accordingly found to be without any force and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to cost.