' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This civil revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 2- 7-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Charsadda, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and consequently the judgment and decree dated 17-2-2010 passed by the learned trial Court has been maintained.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed Suit No.16/1 en 23-9-2008 against respondents for declaration to the effect that Mutation No.2566 attested on 14-9-2006 is not in accordance with judgment and decree dated 17-1-2006 Dassed in Civil Suit No.187/1 Neem decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Charsadda and is ineffective upon the rights of petitioner. Relief for permanent injunction and possession was also sought. This suit was contested by respondents and the main ground of defence was that Mutation No.2566 was attested on the basis of cognovits filed by petitioners thus suit is res judicata and plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., the learned trial Court after hearing the arguments rejected the plaint vide order dated 17-2-2010.
Appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, hence, the instant revision petition.
3. The record of the case revealed that earlier Suit No.187/1 was filed on 28-3-1998. During pendency of suit on 8-12-2004, the present petitioners filed a cognovit and admitted the claim of plaintiffs (respondents of instant petition). As the contesting defendants (present petitioners) had acknowledged the rights of the respondents and rest of the defendants were placed ex parte, so a decree was passed against the defendants (present petitioners) to the extent of 14 kanals, 9 marlas of land. On the basis of decree, Mutation No.2566 was attested on 14-9-2006, which has been challenged through instant proceedings.
4. From the record, it is evident that in the earlier round of litigation a compromise was effected between father of petitioners, Fazl-e-Rabi and the respondents whereby 19 kanals, 4 marlas of landsituated in Mauza Chak Charsadda was given to Fazl-e-Rabi in exchange of land measuring 19 kanals, 4 marlas situated in Mauza Prang Sadokhail, Charsadda to be transferred by Fazi-e-Rabi to respondents. Consequently, the mutation number 5513 was duly attested in favour of Fazl-e-Rabi, but in consequence of same, he failed to transfer in favour of respondents, whereupon respondents filed suit number 187/1 and during pendency of suit, the petitioner being L.Rs. Of Fazl- e-Rabi admitted the claim of respondents and recorded statement before trial Court. They not only admitted the exchange already settled but agreed to passing of decree against them. On this background a decree was passed on 17-1-2006 and in consequence thereof, mutation bearing number 2563 was attested on 14-9-2006.
5. The petitioners during the course of litigation raised inconsistent pleas from time to time and failed to abide by theft own covenants, by taking somersault on one pretext or other just in order to prolong their possession and denying the settled rights of respondents. The petitioners are taking benefit, under earlier compromise B whereby land was transferred in their favour but at the same time declines to accept a decree passed in favour of respondents. They are estopped from challenging the mutation based on a valid decree. Petitioners were rightly non-suited by the learned courts below under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Under the circumstances of the case.
' In view of what has been stated above, this petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.