PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J. --- 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 Rakli Khan Pur upon the State land, in that eventuality the 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 subordinate Courts must announce the judgment/order after recording reasons and signing the same. 1983 CLC 254 "Mehrnaod Khan v. 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 the 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 he 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 area bound by their commitments/offers made before the Court and judgment 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-wards.
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 co-occurrent in nature but perfectly in accordance with law on the subject. This petition, therefore, being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.