1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-There were four contestants includ--ing the petitioner, for transfer of Property No. S-XX-5-S-5 Canal :Park, Lahore, which, on the Settlement side, was finally disposed of in revisional jurisdiction by the Settlement Com--missioner who divided it into four portions, respectively .Marked A, B, C and as marked out in the plan of the property. Portion .C was given to the petitioner. The petitioner and the other contestants took the matter to the High Court in writ jurisdiction, where a compromise was reached by the parties concerned which was accepted by a learned Single Judge after he had duly. Recorded the statements of the parties in acknowledge-- ment of the compromise. The learned Single Judge directed that the division of the disputed property should take place in accordance with the compromise. It appears that the petitioner later regretted this compromise and sought to have it reversed by moving a review petition and then a Letters Patent appeal, which have all been dismissed. He has now come up to this Court for Special Leave to Appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Art. 98 of the Consti--tution to make orders on compromise. We consider that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise this plea. He was a party to the compromise which was filed in the Court and he along with others invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to accept that compromise. In these circumstances, we consider that the petitioner is disqualified to raise the issue in this petition for special leave, that the High Court was not competent to pass the orders on a compromise in writ jurisdiction. We refuse to grant leave.
3. The petition is dismissed.