The petitioner through this revision petition assails judgments and decrees dated 03.12.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge and learned Addl: District Judge, Muzaffargarh dated 17.1.2003.
2. The respondents Lal Muhammad etc. filed a suit for possession against the defendant/petitioner Khuda Bukhsh which was decreed to the extent of 11 Marlas of land vide judgment and decree dated 3.12.2002, where against the present petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of vide order dated 6.5.2004. The order of learned Addl: District Judge being vitally important for resolution of the controversy, is reproduced hereunder:-- "06.05.2004.
Present: Parties alongwith their respective counsel who have opted not to file objections upon the report of D.D.O.(R) and instead have desired that the appeal shall be disposed of in terms of the report of D.D.O.(R). Similar statements of the parties were recorded on 25.2.2004 when the mater was referred to D.D.O. (R). Thus, commensurate with the consensus between the parties, the report of the D.D.O. (R) is held exclusive so far as determining possession of the property and ancillary allegation of demolishing. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the report of D.D.O (R), which shall make part of the decree. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back whereas that of this Court shall be consigned. Announced 6.5.2004, Zulfikar Khan Nasir, Addl: District Judge, Kot Addu."
3. The impugned order dated 6.5.2004 passed by learned Addl: District Judge is indicative of the facts that the appeal was disposed of in view of report of D.D.O (R.) with the consent of the parties.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the observations made in the impugned appellate order are contrary to the facts or law.
4. I find that the learned Addl: District Judge adopted a course/mode for decision of the appeal with the consent of the parties and by now it is well settled proposition of law that the parties to alis, having agreed to a specific mode/procedure for decision thereof cannot subsequently be allowed to resile there-from and the judgment/order can be passed in accordance therewith. The learned Addl: District Judge having passed an order by adopting a mode with the consent of the parties, committed no illegality or irregularity. This revision petition, therefore, is not maintainable.
5. The office report also indicates that the order of this Court dated 7.11.2006 has not been complied with. Bedsides there are concurrent findings of facts and law arrived at by both the learned Courts below, therefore, this revision petition is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution as well as being not maintainable.