Brief facts of this writ petition are that plaintif fs/predecessor in interest of present petitioners filed suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction wherein respondents/ defendants entered appearance and in presence of respondents/defendants, all the three plaintif fs got recorded their joint statement on 16.06.2009 to the effect that compromise has been effected between the parties and they requested for withdrawal of the suit, whereupon the suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.06.2009. Thereafter on 23.04.2010 the petitioners No. 2 to 9/legal heirs of plaintif fs No. 1 and Petitioner No. 1 Defendant No. 2 filed an application under Section 12(2), CPC for setting aside consenting order dated 16.06.2009 and the Same was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2014, Feeling aggrieved, civil revision challenging the said order was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2016. Being dissatisfied, instant writ petition has been filed by challenging the said orders.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/ legal heirs of Plaintif fs No. 1 & 2 and perused the record.
3. Perusal of record reveals that only legal heirs of Taj Din/Plaintif f No. 1 and Shaukat Ali/Plaintif f No. 2 have challenged the order dated 16.06.2009 by filing an application under sections 12(2), CPC dated 27.04.2010 while neither Taj Din deceased challenged the order dated 16.06.2009 in his lifetime nor Muhammad Younas/Plaintif f No. 3 has challenged the said order . All the plaintif fs namely Taj Din/ Plaintif f No. 1, Shaukat Ali/Plaintif f No. 2 and Muhammad Younas/ Plaintif f No. 3 appea red before the trial Court on 16.09.2009 and unconditionally withdrew the suit by recording their joint statement and putting their thumb impressions on the order sheet due to compromise while affidavit of Taj Din/Plaintif f No. 1 was also placed on record as Mark-1. This fact is very much clear from order sheet of trial Court which bears signature and thumb impressions of the plaintif fs. No details of compromise are mentioned for withdrawal of that suit either in the recorded joint statement or in the affidavit filed by Plaintif f No. 1/Taj Din. The petitioners failed to substantiate the allegation of fraud on the part of the respondents/defendants.
Mere allegation not supported by any material would not invariably warrant inquiry or investigation. All these abovementioned facts negate the claim/ground as written in application for setting aside the impugned orders.
Therefore, plea being raised by the petitioners at this stage has no force. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to satisfy the judicial conscious of the Court as presumption of truth is attached to the record of the Court under Article 129 (e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 and Article 150 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Authenticity of the judicia l record cannot be doubted without any solid proof and only on the oral arguments of the learned counsel. Learned counsel for petitioners has not been able to point out any plausible ground due to which he is seeking setting aside of the impugned orders, hence, they are not entitled to any relief.
The case law relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners reported as Muhammad Aslam and others vs Mst.
Kundan Mai and others (2004 SCMR 843) is concerned, the same is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
4. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders have been passed after properly evaluating the facts of the case and keeping in view the settled law. No infirmity , legal or factual, has been pointed out in the impugned orders, requiring interference, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.