' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 10-3-1984 passed in Civil Revision No, 43 of 1984.
2. A suit for specific performance of contract dated 31-12-1980 was filed by the petitioners. The respondents offered a compromise by application dated 4-6-1983 whereupon the case was adjourned to 5-6-1983 for the petitioners to consider the offer. On this date the statements of the parties were recorded in which the petitioners agreed to make payment of rupees three lacs on or before 30-6-1983 and of rupees ten lacs by 25-7-1983 in Court or by a Bank Draft drawn in favour of the respondents and in case they failed to do so the agreement will come to an end. The respondents also agreed to this offer and stated that in case the payment is not made as promised, the possession of the property in dispute will pass on to the respondents. In pursuance of the above agreement the petitioners failed to make the payment in the Court of the learned Civil Judge before whome the suit was pending and accordingly the suit was dismissed vide his judgment dated 27-7-1983 and decree was passed.
3. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Civil Judge by application under section 12(2) C. P. C. Before the same Court which was dismissed on 1-12-1983. The petitioners thereafter filed a Revision Petition bearing No, 235 of 1983 before the Lahore High Court which was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 21-12-1983. The petitioners then filed a petition for leave to appeal against the revisional order of the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by this Court per order dated 28-,-1984. In the meantime the petitioners moved an application on 14-1- 1984 under sections 151 and 152, C. P. C. Before the learned Civil Judge praying that the decree be amended to delete the relief of possession that has been granted to the respondents as the petitioners had never agreed to the delivery of the possession and that the decree did not conform to the compromise. This application was also dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. Petitioners filed, a Civil Revision No, 43 of 1984 before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners now contends that the amendment of the decree fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the learned lower Court as the said decree was neither merged itself in the order of the High Court nor in the order of this Court dated 24-1-1984 and since the decree did not merge either in the revisional order of the High Court or the order of this Court, therefore, it could be amended accordingly ; that the order of this Court does not operate as res judicata ; the circumstances of each case have to be considered in applying the principles of res judicata ; that even if the suit of the petitioners could be dismissed the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession of the property in favour of the respondents as it was never agreed by them to deliver the possession to the respondents.
5. We have gone through the various orders of the Courts below and the final order in the petition before this Court decided on 28-1-1984 wherein it was held that the petitioners' conduct was such that they could not take advantage of their own failure to honour their commitment ; that the petitioners had not applied to the Court of first instance to amend the decree at the initial stage when order of that Court dated 27-7-1983 was passed but they took the matter in appeal and revision before the higher Courts where the original order of the Civil Judge was held to be valid.
The arguments of the learned counsel would also not be of any avail as the restoration of possession is necessary consequence of the said finding. The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every Court and should be exercised whenever the justice demands. We, would therefore not interfere with the orders assailed, and dismiss this petition accordingly.