' This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by Muhammad Ilyas appellant to challenge judgment and decree dated 21-1-1976 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura whereby he dismissed appeal filed against judgment and decree, dated 25-4-1974 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura decreeing the suit of Muhammad Siddiq respondent No, 1.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Muhammad Siddiq respondent No, 1 was owner of agricultural land measuring 113 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in Mauza Bhatti Dhalwan, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. On 21-3-1965 he alienated the same by means of sale deed executed in favour of Muhammad Ilyas appellant and his brother Abbas Ali for a consideration of Rs,14,000. Muhammad Siddiq on 1-5-1970 instituted a suit for declaration to the effect, that he was owner in possession of the suit land and that the sale deed, dated 29-3-1965 (Exh.D/1) was out- come of fraud and mis-representation. The sale deed was got signed from him on the pretext that he was executing a 'Patanama'.
' The suit was only contested by Abbas Ali and Muhammad Ilyas defendants and not by other proforma defendants. The parties led evidence in support of their cases and the case was fixed for arguments, when on 25-4-1974 the parties compromised the suit on the statements of Muhammad Siddiq plaintiff, Abbas All defendant and learned counsel for Muhammad Ilyas the present appellant and Abbas Ali defendant. The learned trial Court passed consent decree subject to payment by plaintiff a sum of Rs,14,000 to the aforesaid defendants upto 25-9-1974 failing which his suit stood dismissed.
' Muhammad Ilyas and aforesaid Abbas Ali challenged the trial Court's decree in appeal; but the same was dismissed on 21-1-1976 by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.
3. Learned counsel for Muhammad Ilyas appellant has raised before me a solitary contention to the effect; that the appellant on the day of the institution of the suit by Muhammad Siddiq respondent was minor and he had been sued without a guardian ad litem, consequently the consent decree passed by the learned trial Court was untenable under the law. The appellant's application for leading additional evidence to prove that he was minor on the day of the institution of the suit was wrongly rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura. In support of his submission he relied on Allah Ditta and 4 others v. Malik Ahmad Bakhsh and 5 others PLD 1975 Lah. 403; Mst. Barkat Bibi v. Muhammad Amin and others AIR 1932 Lah. 521; Barodaprosed Sukul v.
Sahanlall Boid and others AIR 1937 Cal. 658 and The Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan & another v. Gulzar Muhammad PLD 1969 SC 60.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, contended that the appellant on the day the suit was compromised viz. 25-4-1974 was major and represented through his counsel Malik Rashid Ahmad, Advocate as such, it cannot be said that the consent decree passed in the suit was without his knowledge or instructions. It was also submitted that the appellant filed written statement under his own signatures. Abbas Ali his brother who had jointly signed the written statement and engaged counsel did not point out to the Court at any time that the appellant was minor on the day the suit was instituted by Muhammad Siddiq respondent. It was next contended that even in appeal the appellant did not place on the record any document to show that he was minor on the day the suit was instituted against him except a day earlier than the final disposal of the appeal he moved application for additional evidence so as to bring on record a secondary school certificate and a copy of entry from the birth register..This application was rightly rejected the same being belated and the appellant being major on the day of compromise.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with their assistance. The main question which falls for determination in this case is whether the consent decree passed on 25-4-1974 by the learned trial Court and maintained in appeal, is valid against the appellant. The transaction of sale of the suit land made on 29-3-1965 in favour of the appellant and his brother Abbas Ali by means of document Exh. D/1 did not show that the appellant was minor at that time rather he was shown competen` to contract. When Muhammad Siddiq respondent instituted the suit against the appellant and his brother and the written statement was signed by the appellant it was not shown that he was minor and the suit was incompetent against him without appointment of guardian ad litem. On the day th suit was decreed he was represented by his counsel and undoubtedly was major, the consent decree, therefore, passed was not against minor. It is significant to notice that, for the first time, on 5-6-1974 when the appellant filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura it was averred that on the day the suit was instituted against him and his brother, he was minor and was sued without guardian ad litem. He did not care to bring on the file any document to show that he was minor on the day the suit was filed against him except a day earlier than the decision of the appeal, he moved an application to produce a copy of the extract from birth register to show that he was born on 13-7-1954 and copy of school certificate wherein date of his birth was recorded as 29-3-1955. The learned Additional District Judge did not allow the application at such belated stage because according to him it was an attempt to fill in the gaps in the evidence led by the appellant before the learned trial Court. No reasonable explanation was given by the appellant for non-producticn of the aforesaid documents before the learned trial Court in evidence or before the first appellate Court with the memorandum of appeal particularly when the appellant had attained age of majority about two years prior to the date of decree.
6. No doubt it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to sue the defendant who is minor through his guardian ad litem but unless he is posted with such a knowledge on the date of institution of the suit or thereafter at any time during the pendency thereof. It is not the case of the appellant that Muhammad Siddiq respondent knew about his minority and he deliberately did not sue him through guardian ad litem. Similarly it is also not his case that Abbas Ali his brother colluded with the plaintiff and did not point out about appellant's minority at any stage of the suit. The appellant himself did not point out to the Court after he had attained majority before the decision of the suit.
Since the suit was decreed long after the appellant had become major and he was represented through his counsel, it does not lie in his mouth to say that the decree passed against him was nullity.
The learned trial Court was not aware of the fact as to whether the appellant was minor on the day the suit was instituted nor that he had attained majority during the pendency thereof and was major on the day the consent decree was passed. The learned Additional District Judge, in my view, rightly rejected appellant's application for additional evidence at a belated stage when no reasonable explanation whatsoever had been given by the appellant for non-production of the documents in question at the proper time. It is also note-worthy that Abbas Ali has not challenged the impugned decree in second appeal before this Court.
' The case The Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan and another v. Gulzar Muhammad PLD 1969 SC 60 cited by learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have allowed the application under Order XLI, rule 27 C.P.C. Is not helpful and is distinguishable because the factum of appellant's being major or minor was within his knowledge. He could point out to the learned trial Court and produce evidence at the proper stage.
' Similarly the other cases referred to by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable in application to the facts of the instant case. In Allah Ditta's case ex-parte decree against minors was obtained without suing them through guardian ad litem. The decree was not executed and that order was maintained. In the instant case the decree was passed against the appellant and his brother who were admittedly majors and not minors, ' In Barkat Bibi's case it was held that where the Court passes an order allowing compromise and granting decree in accordance with the terms of compromise without ascertaining as to whether the compromise was for the benefit or to the prejudice of the minor the order would be illegal and would not bind the minor. In the case in hand the decree had been passed against a major and not minor. This fact alone establishes that the aforementioned case is not helpful to the appellant.
' In the last case; Barodaprasad Sukul, it has been laid down that in matters of compromise' the Court should scrutinise the terms of compromise and see that the interests of minors are adequately protected. In the present case neither the appellant nor his brother, who were represented through counsel, pointed out to the learned trial Court that the appellant was minor on the day the suit was instituted and had attained majority when it concluded. The appellant, even after he became major did not revoke the authority of his counsel to represent him; before the trial Court, nor pleaded as such, before the lower appellate Court which shows that he had impliedly ratified his authority to represent him. As pointed out earlier the appellant undoubtedly had attained majority long before the suit was compromised between the parties, it was, therefore, not necessary for the trial Court to have taken extra care to watch his interest when he was not minor on the date of decree.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.