' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Through instant Revision Petition, petitioner assails the judgment and decree dated 18-7-2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No,1 was accepted and judgment dated 21-1-2011 of learned Trial Court was modified.
2. Briefly, the facts as per contents of this petition are that the petitioner filed civil,suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against respondents Nos.1 and 49 others, in respect of suit property fully described in the heading of the plaint. Suit was resisted by respondent No,1 and after recording pro and contra evidence, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 21-1-2011 decreed the suit as prayed for. Being dissatisfied, appeal was preferred by respondent No, 1 . On 18-7-2011 both the learned counsel for parties recorded their statement and in the light of same, appeal was disposed of with the following terms:-- "9. Counsel for parties toady agreed that though mutation No, 1868 has been cancelled but All Gohar still being owner in the suit property was competent to transfer his legal share in favour of present appellant and present appellant be considered as a co-owner in both Khattas which would be subject to fresh partition according to law. Statement of learned counsel for parties recorded and placed on file.
10. Therefore in view of above facts, the appeal in hand is disposed of accordingly with slight modification in the impugned judgment/decree that appellant is owner of 14-kanal 12-marla 06- sarsai in whole khatta and specifically cannot claim the ownership of khasra Nos.1670/2 and 1687/1 and both khattas Nos.202/601 and 204/603 to 605 would be subject to fresh partition according to law. Requisitioned record along with copy of this judgment be returned forthwith while file of this Court be consigned to record room after its necessary compilation and completion."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Appellate Court has based the impugned judgment on the basis of joint statement of the counsel of the parties, without looking into merits of the case, which is against law. He further argued that the petitioner never instructed his counsel to make settlement and the Appellate Court failed to record statement of the petitioner.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 supported the judgment filed by the Appellate Court and contended that the appeal was duly contested by the petitioner and on his instructions, the statement was made by his counsel. He further argued that in presence of petitioner, the judgment was announced and no objection was made by the petitioner at the relevant time. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The main grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner is that on the clay,the statement of counsel for the parties was recorded before the learned Appellate Court, misrepresentation was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention is misconceived on the ground that the authority given by the petitioner to his learned counsel had never been revoked by him either before or at the time of making the statement. As has already been observed, the fact that the learned counsel was engaged by the petitioner to represent him in the appeal. The authority given to the counsel included not only to represent the petitioner but also to make any statement including the compromise settlement on his behalf. No objection was raised before the learned Appellate Court about the statement recorded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The circumstances, therefore, rule out the element of misrepresentation or fraud alleged by the petitioner. In identical case reported in the case of Mobile Eye Service of Pakistan v. Director Social Welfare (PLD 1992 Karachi 183), the Hon'ble High Court declined upon the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation subsequently made by the party when no objection was taken at the relevant time. This view has further been supported by reported judgment in case of Messrs Azhar Asia Shipping Agency v. Ghaffar Corporation (PLD 1996 SC 213). In case of Khuram ljaz v. District and Sessions Judge, Hafizabad reported in (2007 MLD 1945) it has been held that consent for decision of suit given by the counsel without any authority and consent of his party, would still be binding on his party and the party cannot wriggle out by asserting that the said offer was neither with his consent nor with his authority. In a case reported in Dr.Insar Hassan Rizvi v. Syed Mazahir Hussain Zaidi and 3 others (1971 SCMR 634) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that advocate appointed by a party having valid 'Wakalat Nama' has implied authority of his client to entertain into compromise and settle dispute, unless such authority expressly denied from entering into a compromise. This view has already supported by a Privy Council judgment reported in case of Sourendra Nath Mitra and others v. Tarubala Dasi (AIR 1930 PC 158).
6. Petitioner has not denied his signature on power of attorney. He had neither initiated any action against the said counsel for alleged unauthorized representation nor inform the Court concern or approach the said Court through relevant provision of law for setting aside of that decree. Strong presumption of correctness and sanctity of higher order was attached to judicial proceedings.
Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ramzan v. Lahore Development Authority (2002 SCMR 1336).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.