' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- This is a Civil Second Appeal against order dated 10-09-2014, passed by the learned District Judge Astore, whereby, Civil First Appeal (CFA No,26/2014) was dismissed.
2. I have converted this appeal into a revision, therefore, hereunder petitioner means appellant/ decree holder and respondents mean respondents/judgment-debtors.
3. Petitioner Ghulam Nabi filed Civil Suits Nos.29/2007-06/2010 in the trial court of Civil Judge First Class Astore, who through his order dated 25-08-2009 passed the following decree:- "Parties in person along with their counsel present and filed a compromise deed with request to make it rule of this court. Both the parties have accepted the contents of said compromise deed.
Request of the parties allowed and the compromise deed consisting of 06 pages is placed on file and made the rule of the court. File stands disposed off in the light of the said compromise deed and be consigned to record room after due completion."
' After the above decree, the decree holder, who is petitioner of this case, filed execution petition (Execution Petition No,03/2011) and the learned trial court started execution proceedings entailing to order dated 05-08-2011 which goes as under:--
05-08-2011
2. "Petitioner through counsel present. Respondent absent. Report of revenue staff regarding execution received. Decree has been executed.
' File after completion be consigned to record." Announced.
05-08-2011 ' Then petitioner/plaintiff moved an application (Civil Misc. No,03/2014), wherein, the trial court passed order dated 30-08-2014, which goes as under:-- Order 30-08-2014 "Parties as previous present. As per order in main execution petition it has been maintained that the decree in question as per order dated 5-8-2011 in case No,3/2011, already been and executed, so the main execution petition has been dismissed, so this petition is infractious, hence same is dismissed. No order as to cost. File after completion be consigned to record."
' From perusal of record, I find proceedings of the trial court on yet another execution petition, i.e,, Execution Petition No,18/2011, which ended on 30-08-2014. Feeling aggrieved from the said order on the said execution petition, petitioner filed CFA No,26/2014, resulting to the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for parties debated on the question that second appeal lies to this court or not?
If no second appeal lies then whether this court should convert the second appeal into a revision petition or writ petition? I am of the opinion that I should convert this appeal into a revision petition and I did so (supra).
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. The most important aspect of the case that debated before me is the correctness or otherwise of the original decree dated 25-08-2009. In the opinion of the counsel for parties, the said decree was correct in all respects and was fit to be executed. I have minutely perused the said decree which is obviously based on the compromise dated nill, initialed by the learned Civil Judge on 25-08-2009. The so filed compromise deed is comprised of 06 pages and contains very irrelevant discussions. Many parts of the so filed compromise contains moral dictations to the parties. In my opinion, the compromise is not fit to be executed as it is devoid of even mention of the suit land in its any part. I have very painfully noted that many aspects of the compromise are beyond the contents of plaint.
So, in my opinion, the said compromise is beyond the subject matter of the suit. Almost all the contents of said compromise are not describing any part of suit land. I am of the confirmed opinion that all courts, who are making compromises or awards rule of the court, are legally bound to minutely go through the so presented compromises and awards, to see that, whether such compromises or awards or any part thereof is beyond the subject matter of the suit sub-judice?
Courts are supposed not to make rule of court any compromise or award that contains any material beyond the subject matter of the suit. It is really astonishing that how the revenue staff concerned executed this very compromise? The then PO of learned trial court has illegally and blindly made the said compromise rule of the court. In my opinion, the procedure adopted by the learned trial court for passing the decree/order dated 25-08-2009 in Civil Suit No,06/2010 is the result of ill appreciation of law and practice governing making rule of court of compromises or awards, therefore, the same is not only a material irregularity on the part of the then PO of the court, but has also caused substantial miscarriage of justice.
6. In view of above discussion, I hold that both the trial court and revenue staff concerned have executed something which is not part of subject matter of the suit (C.S. No,06/2010), in the garb and name of decree under execution, that the learned trial court passed in the light of above referred so called compromise. I, therefore, deem it proper to interfere in the matter, in exercise of my supervisory powers. The decree dated 25-08-2009 stood set aside. Compromise dated 25-08- 2009 filed in Civil Suit No,06/2010 stands cancelled. All proceedings, including the execution proceedings on both the execution petitions (Execution Petition No,03/2011 and Execution Petition No,18/2011) are set aside. Proceedings taken by the two courts below on any civil misc. Petition also stands set aside. To the trial court with direction to resume trial proceedings on the Civil Suit (C.S. No,66/2010), from the stage, prior to filing of the above referred compromise. Petition allowed accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court concerned as well as to the first appellate court. Petitioner to bear costs. This file be consigned to record.