' CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J.---Briefly facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance of an agreement wasfiled by the petitioner against Riaz Ahmed/ respondent No.1 and Muhammad Asghar, predecessor of respondents Nos.2 to 7 pleading that parties have entered into an agreement to sell for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (One Million) regarding a piece of land measuring 8 Kanalas bearing Khasra Nos.197 and 198 in Mauza Dehati, District Rawalpindi on 31.1.2004; an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement whereas remaining was to be paid on or before 7.2.2004; that the remaining amount was also paid to respondent No.1 in the presence of witnesses; that respondent No.2/Muhammad Asghar died on 30.6.2004 and on his death mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs (respondents Nos.2 to 7) including Khasra Nos.197 and 198. A written statement was filed in the suit and issues were also framed by the trial court in the light of pleadings of the parties. However, during pendency of the suit parties reached at a compromise which was submitted before the court as `Mark-C'.Respondents Nos.2 to 7 conceded the claim of the petitioner and stated that the suit may be decreed as prayed for. The learned trial court while deciding the case observed that suit property was not in possession of the petitioner and he has not prayed for recovery of possession as consequential relief due to which the suit was not maintainable. Consequently plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.6.2012. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2014. Being dis-satisfied the petitioner has approached this Court through the civil revision in hand.
2. Contention of learned counsel forthe petitioner is that whole consideration amount was paid by the petitioner to respondents Nos.1 to 7 and statement of the parties were duly recorded whereby compromise deed (Mark-C) was placed on record hence, the trial court could not reject the plaint rather the suit should have been decreed according to the terms and conditions of the compromise Mark-C. He further contends that appellate court has also not considered this aspect of the case and wrongly dismissed the appeal holding that possession of the suit land was admittedly with Pak Army and that the plaint was rightly rejected by the trial court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondents Nos.1 to 7 has submitter that the compromise Mark-C had been voluntarily made by the parties and that still respondents have no objection if the suit is decreed in favour of the petitioner.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is admitted between the parties in this case that during pendency of the suit parties have reached a compromise which was placed on record as Mark-C. This fact was noted by both the courts below in their judgments. Even before this Court learned counsel representing the respondents has conceded that the compromise Mark-C had been voluntarily made by the parties and that respondents have no objection if the suit is decreed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.
Relevant provisions of law found in Order XXIII Rule 3, C.P.C. Which deals with compromise of a suit.
It is provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit.
6. The above provision of law clearly shows that when the parties reached a compromise regarding the subject matter of the suit the court shall order such compromise or satisfaction to be recorded and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith. Reference may also be made to Rahim K. Sheikh v. United Bank Limited (1998 SCM R 1504), M/s Arokey Limited and others v. Munir Ahmed Mughal and 3 others (PLD 1982 SC 204).
7. In a suit for specific performance it was not at all necessary to make a prayer for possession. It is well settled law that relief by way of delivery of possession in a suit for specific performance would spring out of contract for sale and would be incidental to main relief of specific performance granted in the suit. Reference can be made to the case titled Khadim Hussain and 2 others v. Waris Ali and another (2005 CLC 1144).
8. In the light- of facts and law discussed on the subject I am of the view that both the courts below have committed illegality in exercise of jurisdiction and wrongly rejected plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Consequently, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell is decreed in terms of compromise deed 'Mark-C' as prayed for. Parties are left to bear their own costs.