' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- The Capital Development Authority Islamabad had granted lease- hold rights on fixed premium and ground rent in regard to Plots Nos,333-340 and 349-356, Sector 1- 9, Islamabad for a period of thirty years commencing 26-8-1965 to the respondents for the purpose of establishing an industry. The respondents, it is alleged, failed to develop the plots till the end of 1980. The respondents,however, entered into an agreement for sale/ assignment of the lease-hold rights in the said plots for the remainder period of about 15 years with the petitioners for a total consideration of Rs,17,50,000; and in order to enable the petitioners to fulfil the obligations under the agreement, executed a general power-of-attorney in favour of Rafique Ahmad Bhatti, Managing Director of the petitioner-Company.
2. The petitioner, due to certain differences between the parties, filed Civil Suit No,75 of 1983 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, on 27-7-1983, and the Court on 5-6-1983 recorded the statement of Rafiq Ahmad Bhatti Managing Director of the petitioner-Company to the effect that he has accepted the offer of the defendant and the plaintiff firm will deposit Rs,3 lacs upto 30-6- 1983 in the Court or the same amount will be paid in the Court by a draft to the defendants. Besides this, the rest of the amount will be paid according to the order of the Court. In case the first mentioned amount is not deposited by him or the payment is not made in Court, the agreement shall be deemed to have ended.
' The same day, statement of the defendant counsel was also recorded wherein it was stated that the above statement has been heard by him. The representative of the plaintiffs shall deposit the amount in the above-mentioned terms or else the agreement will be deemed to have been terminated and the defendant will be entitled to the possession of the suit property. Subsequently, the Court passed the following order: "Counsel for the defendant present and their representative is also present. The plaintiff, according to the compromise had undertaken to pay Rs,10 lacs in the Court by 25-7-1983 and 3-9-1983 was fixed as the date for verification when the defendant verified, it transpired that the plaintiff had failed to deposit the said amount upto 25-7-1983 and the defendant's counsel applied for dismissal of the suit. A notice was given to the plaintiff and from the record it gleans that the plaintiff had not abided by their statements regarding depositing of the said amount, and, therefore, the Agreement between the parties is deemed to have been cancelled, and, in consequence, the suit is dismissed. The possession of the suit property is to be handed over to the defendants. The parties to bear their own costs."
3. Against this order, a revision was preferred in the High Court and the learned High Court Judge recorded the following order on 21-12-1983.
"This petition was admitted to a regular hearing on the undertaking that the petitioner would deposit rupees thirteen lacs in Court by 20-12-1983. He failed to deposit the said amount. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared in Court at 8-30 a.m. On 20- 12-1983 and sought an adjournment with a view to contact his client and ascertain whether order of this Court had been complied with or not. He, however, did not turn up. In the interest of justice, I adjourned the case for today to give another opportunity to the petitioner to produce the challan showing deposit of the said amount..."
' We find from the impugned order that even on the next date of hearing the petitioner had not deposited the amount and the learned Judge again adjourned the case to give time to the parties to think over the matter but again the petitioners failed to deposit the amount. The Court, therefore, passed the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners before us contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge recorded the statements of the representatives of the parties separately and did not record any compromise as required by Order XXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. That the two statements dated 5-6-1983, were at variance with each other, and, therefore, it was necessary for an effective compromise and adjustment of the suit that the compromise should have been recorded to bind the parties; that in fact there was no agreement between the parties. He further contended that in the statements of the parties recorded on 5-6-1983 there was no stipulation about the disposal of the suit property.
Both the statements recited that in the event of non-payment of Rs,13 lacs the agreement shall come to an end. The -statement of the petitioner did not proceed any further. Lastly, the learned counsel argued that a compromise only went to the extent that the petitioner shall deposit Rs,13 lacs and in the event of their failure to do so, the agreement shall be deemed to have come to an end.
5. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we do not find any force in them. The petitioner has been playing with the time of the Court and invariably attempted to wriggle out of the agreement made in the presence of the two Courts below. The order of the learned High Court Judge is explicit on the point and has proceeded on correct legal principle that once the parties agreed in the presence of the Court regarding the payment of the amount in question the petitioner should have stood by it. On the contrary, the petitioner had not only been evasive in the payment but had clearly committed contempt of the Court for which the learned Judge has already proceeded against the petitioner's representative. We would, therefore, not interfere in a case where a party intends to take undue advantage of its own designed commitment by taking shelter behind pleas which cannot be legally sustained now. The compromise made in the Court is unambiguous and needs no further elucidation. Hence, we find no merit in this petition which is, consequently, dismissed.