AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this civil revision, the orders dated 27.03.1998, and 17.04.1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan,. Have been challenged.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that an appeal filed by the petitioner against refusal to grant a stay order in a proceeding filed by the petitioner for declaring him insolvent, was pending before the Addl. District Judge, wherein on 27.03.1998 the parties got recorded their statements and requested the Court on the same day to pass an order in accordance with their compromise statements. The Court decided the matter pending between the parties according to their statements on the same day i.e. 27.03.1998. The petitioner after a period of more than 07 months of passing of the said order, opted to file a review petition pleading the story in contradiction to the judicial record and his previous statement recorded in the Court. This review petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.1999. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to argue the case on the ground that originally the petition was for declaring him as insolvent, therefore, compromise could not have been recorded, and further argued on the basis of facts narrated by the petitioner in his review petition.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned orders passed by the Addl. District Judge.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. When confronted with the learned counsel for the petitioner that how this civil revision is competent against the order passed by the A.D.J., whereas the petitioner himself entered into a compromise and comprome statements were recorded on his own request, and that he opted to file a review petition after a period of limitation i.e. More than 07 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that the Court was having no jurisdiction so vested in it by law to decide the /is, or has exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material illegality, and learned counsel also failed to satisfactorily respond to the queries ibid.
7. I have noticed that the compromise statements were recorded on the request of parties which bear their signatures and thumb impressions as well as signatures of their counsel. Moreover, the review petition was filed after a delay of more than 07 months without any plausible explanation and the pleadings whereof are against the judicial record without any proof. In this eventuality, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to make out a case of interference by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
Civil revision .