Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of this revision petition are that the respondent filed a suit for possession which was decreed vide judgments and decrees dated 14.07.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh where-against an appeal was preferred. During the course of hearing of the appeal an application was moved by the petitioners/appellants that if the disputed house is not found to be situated in village Mouza Rakh Khan Pur upon the state land, in that eventuality there appeal may be decided accordingly whereupon the learned appellate Court directed Tehsildar, Muzaffargarh to inspect the spot and submit his demarcation report with respect to the disputed property. In compliance whereof Tehsildar Muzaffargarh after inspection submitted his report on 13.12.2006 that the disputed house did fall in the disputed village. Yet another application was moved by the petitioners for re-demarcation whereupon "Tehsildar" concerned was redirected to inspect the spot in presence of the parties and submit his report which order too was complied with and second report was submitted on 12.01.2003 whereby he endorsed/affirmed his earlier report. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. It is inter alia contended that the report of the Tehsildar was against facts and that the learned appellate Court has not attended to the submissions made at bar before him and that both the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners; that the respondent was not at all owner of the property and that as per revenue record he has already sold out his entire property, therefore, even if the petitioners were not entitled to have possession of the said house, the respondent had nothing to do with it and the disputed house being situated in the state land should have been taken over by the state functionaries and resumed in favour of the government. In support of his contentions relies upon 2007 M LD 157 "M/s. Popular Boards (Put) limited versus Customs, Excise, and Sales Tax appellate tribunal and another".
To canvass that the subordinate Courts must announce the judgment/order after recording reasons and signing the same. 1983 CLC 254 'Mehmood Khan Vs. Muhammad Afsar Khan and another" It was held in this case that trial Court should not decide the list without affording opportunity to the plaintiff to file objection 1991 M LD 2050.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgments.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties at quite some length and with their able assistance have also gone through the entire record. The petitioners through application in writing offered that local commission be appointed for carrying on spot inspection and that their appeal may be decided in accordance therewith. The learned appellate Court appointed Tehsildar who inspected the spot in presence of the parties and on the basis of his report the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. By now it is well settled proposition of law that no party can be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath and that the parties are bound by their commitments/offers made before the Court and judgments and decrees can be passed on the basis thereof. The party making a statement or commitment before the Court cannot be allowed to resile after-words.
6. In view of above I am not inclined to interfere in the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the lower Courts below, which are not only concurrent in nature but perfectly in accordance with law on the subject. This. petition, therefore, being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.