1. ' MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, .J.---Through instant petition the petitioners have assailed order dated 29-9-2007 of Civil Judge, Noushki, whereby the application filed for execution of decree was dismissed and order dated 11-9-2008 of District Judge, Noushki, whereby appeal preferred by them was also dismissed. It is their centention that both the courts failed to understand the nature of the case and also the law, thus made order in violation of law, further decree was misinterpreted. It is further,their contention that report of Local Commissioner was not made subject to cross- examination to the extent of possession of land in question. Furthermore, the Local Commissioner was appointed not only to see the settled land, but also the land which boundaries are mentioned in the plaint, as such the report cannot totally rebut their claim, taken in the plaint, that the snit property was given to respondent No,1 for cultivation, as such after consent decree the possession should have been given back to them (petitioners). But both the courts failed to appreciate this fact and the fact that matter has not been resolved between the parties in respect of remaining land. They have prayed for setting aside of impugned orders thereby accepting their execution application, while possession of property in question as mentioned in plaint and decreed, be ordered to handed over to them.
2. ' The counsel for the parties are heard, while record is perused. Counsel for the petitioner raised same contention as made in memo. Of appeal. While in rebuttal counsel for respondent No,1 contended that during course of trial no objection was raised on Report submitted by the Local Commissioner after inspection of site. Further, the decree was passed with consent of the parties, while observations were also made in respect of rivolous litigation on part of the petitioners. As per record the petitioners filed a suit seeking declaration of their title in respect of property situated within boundaries described as East: Stream, West: Band-e-Haqdad, North: lands belonging to them (petitioners) and South: Small mountain, while bearing khasra Nos.112, 113, 114 and 115, khewat Khatooni No,11, being their ancestral property, in possession of defendant No,1 as their tenant, further, the respondents/ defendants have no concern with the same. Injunction to the extent that the respondents be restrained from making interference in their proprietory right. Further, prayed for recovery of possession from respondent No,1/defendant No, 1 . In his written statement respondent No,1 strongly contested the suit. It is his contention that he is in possession of land in question from time immemorial; further land in question is unsettled land, while the petitioners/plaintiffs with mala fide intention included the khasra and khata Khatooni numbers of other property situated at northern side of property in dispute. Further, the petitioners previously filed two suits which were dismissed by the Qazi Dalbandin. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. While respondent No,2 in reply claimed ownership of property situated within mentioned boundaries being unmeasured land. Further, as far as land bearing khasra Nos. 112, 113, 114 and 115 measuring 27 poles is concerned they have no objection on transfer of the same in names of the petitioners/ plaintiffs, while remaining land described as unsettled belongs to State. Respondent No,2 also prayed for dismissal of suit.
4. ' It is further apparent from record that during pendency of suit Tehsildar Noushki was appointed as Local Commissioner with consent of the parties for inspection of the site in presence of the parties and Revenue staff, to determine the fact that the property in question is in whose possession and occupation and what is its market value. Local Commissioner after inspection of site submitted his report dated 14-6-2006 before the trial court. Relying on the same the trial Court with consent of the parties decreed the suit through order made- on 16-6-2006. As per contents of order dated 29- 9-2007 of Civil Judge, Noushki an Application for execution of decree was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the court being not maintainable. Being aggrieved of the same the petitioners preferred appeal, which was also dismissed by the appellate Court through order made on 11-9-2008. It has been noticed that the petitioners despite undertaking failed to file copy of application filed by them for execution of decree and also the relevant order sheets. Instead of the same they filed order sheets pertaining to main suit during course of trial.
5. ' The perusal of order dated 29-9-2007, whereby application for execution has been dismissed, reveals that the petitioners being decree holders filed the application for handing over of possession of decreed property to them. The application was contested by respondent No,1 on the grounds that as the petitioners are already in possession of land bearing khasra Nos.112 to 114, thus no execution can be made. The contention raised by the petitioners during course of execution of decree that the land existed in between the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint be handed over to them, as they being decree holders are entitled for the same. The executing court comes to the conclusion that:-- "Hence in the light of order passed by this court it nowhere mentions the boundaries of the disputed lands as mentioned in the para No,1 of the suit, but this court has ordered that, no dispute exist over the disputed lands bearing khasra Nos.112, 113, 114 and 115 in Khata and khatooni No,12 situated in Darmain Zangaab Chagai. And decree had also been passed upon the same order.
6. Further the court even remarked and warned the plaintiffs to be careful in future and not to file any suit without any cause of action, which is sufficient to consider that the court decreed the suit to the extent of land bearing khasra mentioned above.
7. ' It is, therefore, the execution sought to the extent of lands hearing boundaries as under:-- East: Stream (Naddi)
8. West: Band-e-Haqdad belongs to plaintiffs North: Lands belonging to plaintiffs; South: Small Mountains; is not maintainable and the application is dismissed."
9. ' The appellate court also arrived at the same conclusion, thereby dismissed the appeal through order dated 11-9-2008. Both these orders are assailed before this court through instant petition.
10. ' It is an established principle of law that the court in execution of decree cannot go behind the decree. In present case the decree is made in C terms of:-- "----In as much as there is no dispute existing among the parties over the land bearing khasra Nos.112, 113, 114 and 115 khatooni No,11, Mouza Darmain, Tehsil and Distict Chagai, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff with consent of the parties is decreed with no order as to cost.---"
11. ' As the order was made with consent of the parties, therefore, at relevant time none of the parties feel aggrieved of the same and remain contended. The dispute arose, when the petitioners approached by filing application seeking therein the execution of decree passed in their favour, praying therein for handing over the possession of land in question to them from respondent No,1 .
12. Their application was rejected as mentioned above from which the petitioners are aggrieved.
13. According to the petitioners as they have handed over property in question to respondent No,1 in year 1994-95 for cultivation, who is still in possession of the same, which is required to be restored in their favour, as per decree made in this behalf. It is also their contention that the dispute pertaining to remaining portion of land is not resolved between the parties by the trial court. In instant petition the petitioners tried to distinguish between the settled and unsettled land allegedly belong to them. But contrary to this contention in their plaint though in paragraph No,1 they described boundaries as mentioned in preceding para, one piece of land which is described as land in question in second paragraph. But in paragraph No,10 the contention of the petitioners is:-- "That it would be worthwhile to mention here that basically the land in dispute was given to one Akhtar Muhammad for the purpose of irrigation and cultivation in the 60s and the land so made cultivable and cultivated was entered as owner in the name of predecessors of plaintiffs and Akhtar Muhammad son of Gul Muhammad in the revenue record, but plaintiffs being unaware of this situation they under misconception treated the land in question unsettled. Copy of settlement record prepared by the revenue authorities pertaining to land in dispute bearing khewat and Khatooni No,11 and khasra Nos.112, 113, 114 & 115 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "E". The land was taken back from Akhtar Muhammad he paid for the mesne profit and as such plaintiffs became the owner of whole property. With passage of time the land was developed and now the same has become a big land."
14. ' As such in prayer clause "A":-- "That the bearing khewat and Ithatooni No,11, khasra Nos.112, 113, 114 & 115 falling within boundaries, as mentioned in para.1 is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs."
15. ' Keeping in view of their own pleadings the mentioned khasra numbers are of the property which was contended to be matter in dispute between the parties at the suit. It is further apparent from record that the local inspection of the mentioned specific khasra numbers were ordered by the trial Court through order dated 8-6-2006, which was surely held in their presence. The report of Tehsildar Noushki dated 14-6-2006 is also present on record, which reveals that it has been specifically mentioned therein that disputed lands bearing khasra Nos.112, 113, 114 and 115 Khatooni No,11, Monza Darman are in joint cultivating possession of the plaintiffs (present petitioners).
16. Keeping in view the Report, the trial Court with consent of the parties decreed the suit only to the extent of these khasra numbers as the sentence "the suit of the plaintiff with consent of the parties is decreed with no orders as to costs" cannot be read in isolation as the sentence started while describing the land bearing mentioned khasra numbers. Further, the order was surely made in presence of the counsel for the parties without any objection raised from any side, in case the order was not in conformity with the claim of the petitioners they must have raised objection at relevant time. They never objected the findings of the Local Commissioner in respect of being in possession of land in question. Irrespective of the plea taken by the respondents, the petitioners have to plead their own case independently. As far as unsettled land is concerned, surely it belongs to the State and no private person can claim any right or title in respect of the same except as provided under law. As the claim of the petitioners were only to the extent of land bearing specific khasra numbers, though no measurement of the same is mentioned neither in the plaint nor in the Report of Local Commissioner, which was required to be inserted in the order by the trial court as no decree can be passed for an unspecific area. The courts while making orders passing decrees in cases where land is matter in dispute the exact measurement/ area must be mentioned therein.
17. As the decree is required to be specific.
18. ' In view of above discussion the petitioners have consented for the order and decree before the trial Court, thereafter, they cannot resile from their stand taken before the trial Court at relevant time. They admitted to be in possession of the decreed property, therefore, later on they cannot claim possession of some other property in garb of the decree made in their favour. The trial as well as appellate court comes to the right conclusion, which needs no interference by this court at this stage. Therefore, instant revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
19. ' No orders as to costs.