The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of the judgment and decree, dated 22-4-1985 and those of the learned District Judge, dated 27-4-1985.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff-petitioner brought a suit for a declaration to the effect that he was owner-in---possession of the land in dispute and Mutation No. 1687 attested on 19-5-1977 was fictitious, void, inoperative and liable to be cancelled. The suit was contested by the respondents and on 7-4-1985, the plaintiff made an offer that in case Qaisar Khan, defendant No. 1 made a statement on the Holy Qur'an that the plaintiff was not in possession of this property at the time of the institution of this suit, then the suit may be dismissed and in case he does not take an oath, then the suit may be decreed. The learned counsel for the respondents accepted the said offer. It may be noted that Ghulam Nabi has thumb-marked his statement while making the offer and his learned counsel also signed the said statement. 22-4-1985 was fixed for the oath of Qaisar Khan who took the proposed oath and the learned trial Court made a note that the compromise has been completed and Qaisar Khan took the oath. He dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
3. It has been contended that the statement of Qaisar Khan should have been recorded and when such statement is not recorded the proceedings are nullified. I do not countenance this argument because the parties made a contract on 7-4-1985 to abide by the oath of Qaisar Khan. Qaisar Khan took the proposed oath which is evident from the note of the learned trial Court. Even if the statement of Qaisar Khan was not recorded in detail, the offer was accepted and accomplished and the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed. I see no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned lower Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction as envisaged under section 115, C . P. C and dismissed this revision petition with costs.