Falak Sher, J.--Abdullah and Inayat Ullah brothers inter se, predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and Respondents No. 2 to 19, respectively preferred a suit for pre-emption against Respondents No. 1 and 20 tending to assail conveyance of the suit land by the latter to the former claiming to be brothers of the vendor and co-sharers in the Khata in May, 1965, which was decreed by Civil Judge, Gujranwala on 26.1.1971 whose findings were maintained in appeal by the District Judge initially on 31.5.1977 as well as, during post remand proceedings (ordered in RSA No. 644/1977 by the Lahore High Court) on 30.4.1999 against which revision petition (C.R. No. 1198/1999) too was dismissed on 24.9.1999, however Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 1508 of 1999 emanating therefrom was disposed of on 17.4.2001 as. Civil Appeal No. 643/2001 in terms of the alleged compromise effect by the parties as under: "Learned counsel for the parties, under the instructions of their respective clients, submitted that the instant petition be disposed of in terms of compromise executed between them outside the Court the compromise deed has been filed before the Court which is marked-A, the contents whereof read as under:--
1. Petitioner/Climax Co. shall deposit Rs. 15 lacs (rupees fifteen lacs) with the Registrar of the Supreme Court within a month from the day of the judgment against written receipt, who shall distribute this amount amongst all the respondents according to their share per record against separate receipts.
2. On deposit of rupees fifteen lacs as stipulated above, the above-noted petition shall stand converted into appeal and accepted. Resultantly, the pre-emption suit filed by respondents shall stand dismissed throughout. On failure to pay the said amount within time, petition shall stand dismissed."
2. As the parties have reached at compromise and request is being made to dispose of the matter in terms thereof, therefore, by accepting the compromise, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Consequently, the concurrent judgments and decrees of all the Courts below are set aside, the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, the subject-matter of the present proceedings, is dismissed subject to compliance of the above terms and conditions on or before 16.7.2001. If the above conditions are not fulfilled by the petitioner within the stipulated period then this order shall be deemed to have been recalled with the result, this petition shall stand dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
Review whereof was dismissed being barred by time on 24.7.2002 as under:-- "This petition is hopelessly barred by 324 days. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel that the compromise and the consequent order is not bidning on his clients because they had not engaged the counsel to enter into any compromise.
2. Be that as it may, the petitioners have awoken from their slumber after about a year, particularly when they were a party to the suit, they had the full knowledge about its pendency. At this stage, the argument advanced is an afterthought to get rid of the compromise. No case for any interference is made out. CMA dismissed accordingly."
2. Where for the present petition has been recorused 'contending that the petitioners being Respondents No. 1 to 12 in the captioned petition for leave to appeal which was disposed of in terms of b the alleged compromise on 17.4.2001, were not represented amongst whom, eight are females including two minors, thus fraud has been committed on them.
3. In view of the gravity of the allegations involving interest of (females) and (minor girls) notices were issued to Dr. A. Basit and Ch. Ikram-ul-Haq Nasim, learned ASCs having appeared as counsels for the parties, repectively during the course of hearing of the Civil Petition No. 1508/1999.
4. Pursuant whereto the latter putting in appearance frankly stated at the bar that he had no authorization to represent the petitioners before this Court when the petition for leave to appeal was II disposed of in terms of the acclaimed compromise.
5. In view where of, in the inerest of justice granting the CMA' No. 2468/2004 the orders disposing of the petition as well as the review application referred to supra are hereby set aside and the Civil Petition No. 1508/1999 would be deemed to be pending for adjudication thereof on merits in accordance with law.