' This appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, dated the 21st January, 1978, confirming the consent decree for possession by pre-emption of the land in dispute passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, on the 20th July, 1977 arises out of the following circumstances. One Muhammad Siddique son of Noor Din sold 107 Kanals 18 Marlas of land situate in the area of village Labia Jhola, Tehsil and District Jhang, to the appellants and mutation No, 924 (copy Exh. D/I) was attested in respect of the sale on the 30th January, 1974. The respondents instituted suit to pre-empt the sale. They claimed superiority of their pre-emptive right on the basis of their qualification of being co-owners of the land in dispute. They averred that the sale had.Taken place for Rs, 13,000 but an ostensible sale consideration of Rs, 20,000 had been fictitiously entered in the mutation. Though in the first instance the appellants resisted the suit yet ultimately they entered into a compromise with the respondents as a result whereof decree for possession of land on payment of Rs, 20,000 was passed in favour of the respondents. The appellant's first appeal before the learned District Court having failed they have come up in second appeal to this court.
2. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that appellants I to 6 were not parties to the compromise resulting in the passing of decree. He maintained that it was counsel for appellants 7 to 12 who made statement agreeing to passing of the decree in favour of the respondents. According to him appellants 1 to 6 had not been served and never put in appearance and therefore, the decree in so far as operated against them was nullity. This point was not raised by the appellants before the first appellate Court and it is difficult to sustain it in second appeal. Sheikh Abdul Majid, Advocate, Jhang, had all along been giving himself out to be the counsel for the appellants. H made statement agreeing to the compromise in his capacity as counsel for the appellants. Even appellant I had put in appearance in person on the 26th April, 1977 and thumb-marked the order sheet. In these circumstances it is too late in the day to put forth the plea of non-representation of appellants 1 to 6. The appellants in the circumstances are bound by the compromise decree. There is no room for interference with the appellate decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The appeal is dismissed with costs.