1. MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.--- Petitioners filed the present revision petition against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Abbottabad dated 5-9-2011, whereby while dismissing appeal of the petitioners maintained the order/judgment of Civil Judge-I, Abbottabad dated 11-5-2011 in execution petition and while dismissing the application of the petitioners for rejecting the execution petition, both the Courts below held that although the decree has not been passed by the Court but compromise was effected and suit was disposed of in light of compromise.
2. 2.The brief but relevant facts of the case are that Ali Akbar predecessor of respondents Nos.1 to 3, Muhammad Hussain and others have filed the suit against Abdullah, Sadullah defendants Nos.1 and 2 (predecessor of the present petitioners) and others for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants are the exclusive Hissadar as a purchaser of the suit property bearing Khasras Nos.235, 239, 237, 240 and 243, the detail of which is given in the heading of the suit. They have purchased the same from defendant No.3 Sahibzada Abdul Latif and defendants No.1 and 2 (predecessor of present petitioners) have no concern with it and the Revenue Record to this effect is liable to be corrected.
3. 3.The averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiffs have purchased the exclusive hissadari coupled with the right in the column of cultivation of the suit property and since then they are in hissadari possession of it. That defendant No.3 had promised through registered Deed No.514 dated 15-5-1958 that he was the exclusive owner and hissadar of the suit property and if someone interfered with the rights of plaintiffs then plaintiffs would be declared as owners of the suit Khasra Nos.4, 5, 14, 148, 270, 286 and 288 to the extent of 7/55 share owned by defendant No.3. That few days ago defendant No.4 has transferred his rights from the column of cultivation through registered Deed No.387 dated 12-4-1997 in favour of defendants Nos.1 and 2 to the extent of his share and defendant No.2 threatened the plaintiffs that he would take possession of the suit property forcibly. That the said registered deed being ineffective upon the rights of plaintiff, is liable to be cancelled plaintiffs are not bound by it. That if plaintiffs are not held entitled to relief Alif then plaintiffs, as per registered Deed No.514 dated 15-5-1958, are owners in possession of suit property bearing Khasra Nos.4, 5, 14, 148, 270, 266 and 288 to the extent of 7/55 shares owned by defendant No.3. That defendant No.2 was asked time and again to refrain from interfering in the hissadari possession of plaintiffs, but he refused, hence the present suit.
4. 4.The defendants were summoned. Out of which, defendants Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 9 and 10 contested the suit by filing their written statement. Issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties. After recording the pro and contra evidence and hearing of arguments, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21-12-2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. But on appeal the case was remanded back to the trial Court for re-deciding the case. During the trial the parties effected compromise and on 26-3-2008 joint statement of counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants for the contesting defendants Nos.1 and 2 (predecessor of present petitioners) were recorded. On the basis of this compromise the suit was disposed of accordingly.
5. 5.Later on the plaintiffs filed an execution petition for execution of the judgment/decree. The contesting defendants moved an application before the executing Court to the effect that the order dated 26-3-2008 in Suit No.1/1 was not executable as it does not fall within the purview of the definition of term "decree" After hearing the arguments the learned executing Court vide order dated 11-5-2011 dismissed the application. Against that order they filed appeal which also met the same fate vide impugned order dated 5-9-2011, hence the present revision petition.
6. 6.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
7. 7.It is admitted fact that the suit has been disposed of on the basis of terms and conditions of the compromise executed between the parties and on the basis of this judgment dated 26-3-2008 decree sheet has been prepared. Though in the final order dated 26-3-2008 specific word "decree" has not been used but the question for determination is that whether the judgment/order and disposal of the suit in term of compromise is executable and that the execution petition could not be thrown out on mere technicalities.
8. 8.In order to reach the correct conclusion it would be proper to reproduce the joint statement of counsel for the parties rendered on 26-3-2008 which are as under:--- "Joint statement of counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for the contesting defendants Nos.1 and 2.
9. States that we have authorized by our clients/parties to record joint statement for disposal of the present suit on the basis of out of court settlement on the following terms and conditions:--- (1)That defendants Nos.1 and 2 admit Hissadari possession of the plaintiffs to the extent of their purchased land measuring 42 Kanals and 4 Marlas on account of Hissadari rights of one Abdul Lateef, defendant No.3 and further admit that defendants shall not interfere in the possession of plaintiff nor claim possession of 7 Kanals out of Hissadari possession of plaintiff in disputed Khasra Nos. till proper partition if any.
10. (2)That the plaintiffs being purchasers of hissadari rights from defendant No.3 Abdul Lateef shall be entitled/adjustment from other Khasra Nos. mentioned in registered Deed No.514 dated 15-5-1958 wherein still vendor Abdul Lateef is having ownership of 43 Kanals.
11. (3)That defendants Nos.l and 2 who had purchased ownership rights of defendant No.4 in disputed khasra Nos. the property that the defendants Nos.1 and 2 are now in possession has not been specified/ascertained through the record of present case, therefore, their Khasra Nos. specification cannot be exactly ascertained at this stage.
12. However, admittedly defendants Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of 7 Kanals other than the disputed property.
13. In light of compromise and conditions it is unanimously agreed and submitted before the Court that the present suit may kindly be disposed of accordingly."
14. 9.All the above noted terms and conditions of compromise reveal that defendants Nos.1 and 2 admitted the claim and Hissadari possession of the plaintiffs. In such situation the contents of the joint statement will have to be seen in which there are certain acts to be performed by the defendants and on the basis of above noted terms and conditions of compromise the suit was disposed of.
15. 10.There is no denying the fact that the judgment based on compromise is executable in the same manner as an ordinary decree. Reference is made to PLD 1975 Lahore 95, 1997 SCM R 517, PLD 2008 Quetta 33, 2010 M LD 187. Since the petitioners admitted the terms and conditions of the compromise therefore, now they cannot be allowed to resile from the terms of their compromise wherein they admitted the rights of respondents. Thus, the orders passed by executing Court as well as by the appellant Court are just and fair in the circumstances of the case.
16. 11.No case for interference with the impugned judgment is made out. Thus, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.