WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---This is a review petition under section 114, C.P.C. Against the judgment passed by this court in Civil Revision No.1092/2003, passed on 03.09.2012, whereby respondent No.!
Muhammad Ayub was held entitled for an excess area of one Kanal 11 Marlas instead of 9 Marlas in Khasra Nos.3115/ 1509 and 3287/1499 situated at Patwar Circle Maira Tangi Barazai, District Charsadda.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, Mirza Gul and other petitioners/ plaintiffs instituted a suit bearing No. 94/1 of 1996 against Muhammad Ayub and others respondents/defendants for declaration and mandatory injunction while Muhammad Ayub and others respondents/ defendants also filed a suit bearing No.93/1 against the petitioners/plaintiffs. Both the suits were contested by each of the partyand after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, the learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.01.2001 dismissed both the suits.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the findings of the aforesaid 'judgment of the trial court both the parties preferred Appeals bearing Nos. 65/13 and 138/13 and vide judgment of the learned Additional District Judge-I Charsadda, camp court at Tangi, dated 11.11.2003, accepted the appeal of Muhammad Ayub and other respondents/ defendants set aside the order of the partition passed by the collector while Appeal No. 138/13 filed by Mirza Gul and other petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed.
4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid findings of the learned appellate court, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed Civil Revision No.1092/200.3 before this court and vide judgment dated 03.09.2012 the same was disposed of in the following terms by way of ADR proceedings which is reproduced as under:- "That Muhammad Ayub,respondent will get the land measuring 1-Kanal 11-Marlas falling under the Abadi of Muhammad Ayub, plaintiff in the suit Khasra numbers and the plaintiffs will get his own share in the suit land for which separate "Tatima" should be curved out while Mirza Gul, plaintiff in suit No.94/1 shall get his due share be curving out "Tatima" in this regard while the remaining respondents share shall remain intact and to this extent, fresh partition mutation would be attested by the Revenue Officer and the present partition mutation and in the impugned partition mutation mentioned in the suit of Muhammad Ayub shall be considered as cancelled.
' In the light of the above observation and compromise arrived between the parties, the said revision petition was accepted and impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts were set aside and the decree in the light of the compromise between the parties was granted vide judgment of this court dated 03.09.2012".
' Arguments heard and available record perused.
5. The only plea of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 is owner to the extent of 9 Marlas and not to the extent of 1 Kanal 11 Marlas, which requires correction, while referring to the Jamabandi annexed with the review petition. Record reveals that Muhammad Ayub has purchased the share of Muzaffar and one Zar Khan vide sale deed Ex-PW-1/1 in addition to purchase of share of his sister.
Even otherwise the judgment and decree of this court is based on a compromise between the parties, which was announced and dictated in the open court in the presence of both the parties, hence no appeal or review lies.
6. A consent order cannot be set aside on a motion under section 151, C.P.C. Nor by invoking Order XLVII, Rule-1, C.P.C. A judgment by consent is as effective as estoppel between the parties as a judgment whereby the court exercise its min Although the review petition is within time and supported by a duly swd on a contested case. Thus, a consent judgment or order is as effective as a judgment or order passed by court on contest between the parties.orn affidavit but this court on appraisal of whole record of civil revision has passed a well reasoned judgment, which cannot be reopened or reviewed in any case whatsoever, thus, review being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.
7. Consequently, this review petition being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost.