' This civil revision arises out of a suit instituted on 16-4-1985 by the respondent against the petitioner in the Civil Court at Daska for the possession of a plot (measurement not given) situated in Mohallah Raiwala Daska Kalan.
2. The respondent had alleged that the said plot was given to the petitioner on the term that he would pay Rs.12,000 which amount he did not pay. The petitioner wanted to utilize the plot so in his possession without making the payment as agreed.
' The petitioner who is real brother of the respondent resisted the suit by denying the claim of the respondent maintaining that the pettioner had succeeded to the said plot by way of inheritance and the partition with the consent of the respondent and also raised an objection that between the parties another similar suit was pending in the same Court.
3. The learned trial Court on 20th May, 1985 on the statement of the respondent dismissed the first suit and proceeded with the latter one after framing the issues. The petitioner on 17-11-1985 made a statement that if the respondent while taking an oath on the Holy Qur'an made a statement as to the plot in dispute that a sum of Rs.12,000 was due from the petitioner then he would have no objection to the passing of the decree against him. Then he made an additional statement seeking permission to remove the Malba from the plot in dispute in case the decree was passed. The respondent in response thereto stated on oath as suggested that on account of the plot in dispute a sum of Rs.12,000 was due from the petitioner. The learned trial Court according to the statements of the parties, so made, decreed the suit vide its order dated 17-11-1985.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal from the abovesaid decree resiling from his statement made before the trial Court and asking the Court for an order to decide the case on merits which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. Before the Learned Additional District Judge instead of assailing the decree on the ground as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal the petitioner made a statement on oath stating that he was prepared to pay a sum of Rs.12,000 for which he requested six months time adding that if he did not make the said payment within six months the other party was entitled to realise the same through the Court. Ghulam Rasool, respondent through his statement on oath accepted the proposal made by the petitioner upon which the learned Additional District Judge set aside the decree of the learned trial Court and passed a decree for a sum of Rs.12,000 in favour of the respondent expressing that the petitioner was granted six months' time for the payment of the said amount, in case of his failure the respondent was to be entitled to the execution of the decree. This is vide order dated 12-5-1986.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken an exception to the abovesaid decree of the lower appellate Court by maintaining that the respondent previously filed a suit on 18-3-1985 for a permanent injunction against the petitioner in the Court of Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Civil Judge Daska praying that the respondent be restrained from constructing house on the plot until a payment of Rs.12,000 was made to the respondent which suit was dismissed as having been withdrawn on 20- 5-1985 and as the suit was withdrawn without having the permission of the Court to proceed with the other suit which had been filed as said above on 16th April, 1985 for possession of the plot, the proceedings in the latter suit were not competent.
6. This question has been raised for the first time in this Court without making it as a subject- matter of adjudication before either of the lower Courts. As narrated above in both the Courts the matter took its disposal with the consent of the parties and the decree of the appellate Court which is being subjected to this civil revision being again a consent decree cannot be challenged by the petitioner The petitioner is bound by his statement on which the impugned decree followed. This civil revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine being without any merit.