1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 28-7-1980 dismissing peti--tioner's revision application and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Shakargarh, which was upheld, on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot. By this judgment the Civil Judge dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and passed a decree against him for Rs. 10,000.
2. The petitioner's suit was for grant of injunction to restrain the respon--dents from interfering in his possession of the Haveli, measuring 3 kanals, 4 marlas, in village Chatrana, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot.
3. In view of defence plea, question arose whether the suit prop Arty was a graveyard. When the case came up for hearing on 30-6-1979, petitioner's counsel made an offer that he would withdraw the suit in case any dead body was found within the disputed property, and the suit be dismissed and further the petitioner shall pay Rs. 10,000 to the respondents as compensation. The respondents readily accepted this offer, and stated that if no dead body was recovered, the petitioner shall be deemed to be the owner of the disputed property and the suit be decreed in his favour and besides they shall be liable to pay Rs. 10,000 to the petitioner. It was further agreed that Rs. 10,000 shall be deposited in Court by each party by 4-7-1979, and any of the parties failed to do so, then the suit shall be decided against that party and furthermore that party shall be liable to pay Rs.
4. 10,000.
5. Learned trial Judge recorded statements of the parties to the above effect which were duly signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. On 4-7-1979 when the case was called at 7-45 a. m. There was no appear--ance on behalf of the petitioner, but when it was taken up for the second time at 10-00 a. m: he appeared with another counsel, Ch. Muhammad Afzal. The petitioner had failed to deposit Rs. 10,000 in Court whereas the respondents had done so. Mr. Maqsood Ahmad learned counsel who had appeared for the petitioner on the earlier hearing on 30-6-1979, made the statement that he had asked the petitioner to deposit the amount in Court, but he declined. Learned trial Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the suit on that day and also passed a decree for Rs. 10,000 against the petitioner.
7. Petitioner's appeal against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on the ground that it was a consent decree and the appeal was not competent. Petitioner's second appeal was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court.
8. Mr. Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, submits that the learned counsel who appeared before the trial Judge on 30-6-1979 was not competent in law to enter into a compromise with the respondents.
9. This plea has been rejected by the learned Judge in the High Court in these words --- "The contentions have been considered and found to be devoid of any force. The petitioner had engaged Maqsood Ahmad Advocate who had filed the power of attorney and the said counsel was legally competent to make statement dated 30-6-1979. The petitioner had not made any application to the learned Civil Judge on 4-7-1979 to the effect that the counsel had been superseded and the case henceforth would be conducted by the new counsel. He had not applied to the learned Civil Judge that he had withdrawn the power of attorney from the previous counsel.
10. He himself was present on 4-7-1979 He could inform the Court when the statement was made by his counsel Maqsood Ahmad that the said counsel had been superseded and was not competent to make statement. No such objection was raised by the petitioner. Under those circumstances I hold that Mr. Maqsood Ahmad Advocate was competent to make statement on 4-7-1979. The suit of the petitioner was dismissed and the decree of Rs. 10,000 was passed against him in accordance with the statement of the parties and it was a consent decree against which no appeal was competent. The provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act did not apply to the facts of this case. The learned Additional District Judge did not commit any illegality in dismissing the appeal"
11. After having gone through the record before us, we find that the vie that prevailed with the learned Single Judge in the High Court is fully borne out from the evidence on record. There is, therefore, no merit to this petition at all.
12. It is dismissed in limine.