DER ' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioners along with other plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit that they are occupancy tenants of land measuring 569 kanals 1 marla situated in village Dharore Muslamana revenue estate, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. According to the entry in Jamabandi for the year, 1968-69 and entry in the said Jamabandi of the plaintiffs as non-occupancy tenants is illegal, against facts, void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs with consequential relief that the names of plaintiffs be entered in the revenue record as occupancy tenants. The suit was resisted by respondents/defendants on legal as well as factual grounds. During the proceedings of this case, the petitioners moved an application for amendment in the plaint with the prayer that they wanted to incorporate the plea of adverse possession as well. However, on 14-10-1987, this petition was rejected after contest.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the order, dated 14-10-1987. During the pendency of revision petition, a compromise was filed in the Court and in support of compromise on 5-7-1988, the statements of Barkat, Muhammad Hussain, Murad and Bashir were recorded and in the light of compromise, the revision petition was dismissed, the case was transferred on its original side and finally, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was filed whereby the compromise, dated 5-7-1988 was challenged contending that the said compromise is a result of fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, the compromise decree be set aside and the proceedings of revision petition be restarted. This application was resisted by other parties and out of respective pleadings of the parties, following issues were condensed:-- "ISSUES
(i) Whether the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is not maintainable? OPR
(ii) Whether the petition is not defective for not challenging the power of attorney in favour of Barkat, if so, with what effect? OPR
(iii) Whether the comprise Mark 'C' judgment and decree, dated 4-7-1988 and the order of disposal of the revision are the result of fraud, misrepresentation and are void for the reasons given in para.3 of the petition? OPR
(iv) Relief."
2. Both the parties adduced their evidence and vide judgment, dated 10-10-2000, Mian Nasir Hussain, learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura dismissed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Hence this Civil Revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment in this revision petition inter alia on the following grounds:--
(i) That the impugned judgment is against the law and contrary to the fact of the case on record.
(ii) That the application for the amendment of the plaint was refused by the learned trial Court. The said order of rejection of the application was challenged in the revision petition while the said revision petition was entrusted to Malik Nazir Hussain Awan, learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura and he cannot exercise the powers of transfer of case under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code because the power of transfer of case is conferred only on District Judge or the High Court but for the purposes of section 24, C.P.C., learned Additional District Judge is a Court subordinate to the District Judge, as such, the learned Additional District Judge cannot exercise powers under section 24, C.P.C. And cannot transfer the case to its original jurisdiction, in this connection reliance can be placed on 1980 CLC 1892 but the learned Additional District Judge Sheikhupura has failed to take into consideration the law laid down by the honourable constitutional Courts, as such, findings on issue No,3 are not sustainable. If the learned Additional District Judge would have taken into consideration the above said ruling he would not have dismissed the application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C.
(iii) That the learned Additional District Judge has brushed aside the argument that the order of the transfer of the case of the original suit is without jurisdiction and any judicial reasoning is not forthcoming to rebut the petitioners' version.
(iv) That the learned Additional District Judge has also lost sight of this aspect that in the original suit, Syed Muhammad Kalim Ahmad Khurshid, Advocate was counsel of the present petitioners/plaintiffs and he was superseded by Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Hashmi, Advocate just to effect compromise while he was not authorized by the present petitioners to effect any compromise.
(v) That one of the plaintiffs Javed was minor while passing the impugned judgment and decree the interest of the minor has not been kept in view and the impugned judgment, decree and compromise contravene the Order XXXII Rule 7, C.P.C. And this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Additional District Judge, as such, interest of the minor has been jeopardized by violation of Order XXXII Rule 7, C.P.C. If this aspect of the matter would have been appreciated by the learned Additional District Judge, he would not have passed the impugned order.
(vi) That the learned Additional District Judge has also failed to appreciate that the respondents have miserably failed to prove that Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Hashmi, Advocate was also a counsel in the original suit, unless and until Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Hashmi was not a counsel in the original suit how he can effect a compromise on behalf of the present petitioners, The petitioners have never appointed Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Hashmi as their counsel, as such, he cannot effect compromise.
(vii) That the learned Additional District Judge has failed to appreciate that the compromise does not pertain to the land in dispute and the extraneous property has also been involved, as such, the impugned judgment and decree is illegal and without jurisdiction.
(viii)That a bare perusal of order, dated 5-7-1988 will reveal that the learned Additional District Judge has observed on the revisional side that the parties have effected compromise and this appeal has become infructuous as such the same is dismissed. After the dismissal of the revision petition, the learned Additional District Judge has become functus officio and he cannot transfer the case to learned trial Court in its original jurisdiction but this aspect of the matter has also been omitted from consideration, thus, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
(ix) That the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on Issue No,2 are also based on surmises and conjectures. The respondents have failed to produce the original power of attorney in favour of Barkat Ali. Denial of the present petitioners have not been appreciated in its correct perspective hence the findings on issues No,2 are not sustainable.
(x) That the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on Issues No,1 are based on surmises and conjectures. The petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was maintainable because the learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to transfer the case in its original jurisdiction under section 24, C.P.C. Especially when the revision petition has also been dismissed by him and he has become focus officio to deal with the matter, as such, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 5-7-1988 was without jurisdiction and factum of fraud and misrepresentation is apparent that when Javed petitioner was minor how compromise can be effected against his interest and Barkat Ali was not an attorney of the petitioners, even otherwise, the present petitioners were not aware of the contents of the so-called power of attorney because the petitioners are old, illiterate Parda Nashin women folk and uneducated villagers and one of the petitioners were minor but this aspect of the matter has also been overlooked thus committing material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction.
(xi) That the revision petition is within limitation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
6. Both the paramount issues were decided in favour of respondents. Before filing of application under section 12(2), C.P.C., the petitioner never challenged the power of attorney executed in favour of Barkat. Simple denial of document without any proof and cogent evidence is not warranted by law. In support of their contentions, the respondents produced R.W.1. Mian Javed Akhtar who confirmed that the compromise Mark "Cl" was executed between the parties and was reduced in writing. He further contends that he, Muhammad Aslam, Ashiq and Malik Rasheed Advocate put their signatures on Mark 'Cl' compromise deed and it was also thumb marked by Mst. Bhaghan, etc. On behalf of the petitioneRs, He further contends that Mark 'Cl' compromise deed was also signed by Muhammad Nawaz Hashmi, Advocate. R.W.1. Mian Javed Akhtar appeared and confirmed factum of compromise. He made a category statement in favour of the respondents. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but the petitioners failed to point out any material discrepancy. Similarly, R.W.2. Iftikhar Ahmed son of Muhammad Sadiq also supported the respondents' version and the factum of compromise. Both Mian Muhammad Aslam, one the respondents, and R.W.4 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Hashmi Advocate, Sheikhupura also supported the case of respondents and all of them were unanimous that compromise was effected about 10 years before filing of application under section 12(2), C . P. C .
7. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the civil revision even otherwise the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is badly barred by time and is not maintainable. The civil revision is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.