1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: --This order will dispose of these two review petitions as they are directed against a common order passed by this Court on 13-11-1985 whereby the Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 317 and 318 of 1985 directed against the order of the High Court dated 26-1-1985 were dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner brought a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Second Class, Chunian, District Kasur asking for a declaration that a compromise entered into by the defendants/respondents in this Court in a case arising out of Mukhbari proceedings against the allotment of Rehmat Khan was inconsequential qua the rights of the petitioner in the disputed land as he was not a party before the Supreme Court. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court under Order VII, Rule II, C.P.C. Vide Order dated 14-4-1984. The petitioner's appeal against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 6-1-1985 and his revision petition challenging the above orders also failed as per judgment impugned herein of the High Court dated 26-1-1985.
3. Hence these petitions for review.
4. Before the Civil Courts the petitioner was really up against the order of this Court dated 13-8-1983, giving effect to the compromise between Rehmat Khan and Ibrahim in his suit. According to the petitioner Ibrahim aforementioned had sold the entire disputed property for valuable consideration in his favour and this fact was reflected in Mutations Nos.402, 519 and 520 sanctioned in 1966.
5. Sometime thereafter Rehmat Khan had filed the Mukhbari application which was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner on 28-8-1969, but the High Court on the writ petition of Ibrahim set aside the said order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 28-8-1969. The result was that the allotment of the disputed land in favour of Ibrahim stood restored and the sales made by him in favour of the petitioners remained intact and effective.
6. This order of the High Court was challenged by Rehmat Khan by filing a' petition for leave to appeal in this Court (CPSLA No.790 of 1979). Herein the petitioner no doubt was not impleaded as a party and during the proceedings of the CPSLA in this Court Rehmat Khan and Ibrahim entered into a compromise on il-8-1983 whereunder Ibrahim agreed to the cancellation of the land in dispute from his name and its allotment in favour of Rehmat Khan. When the petitioners came to know of this compromise they made an application dated 22-12-1983 before this Court for being impleaded as party and for cancellation of the aforesaid compromise. In this application it was inter alia averred:-- "The applicants have vital interest in the said property and the compromise deed submitted by respondent No. 2 (Ibrahim) is likely to affect the rights of the applicants who are the necessary party to the proceeding and are entitled under the law to defend the same.
7. That the respondent No. 2 (Ibrahim) has left no land with him. He has with connivance of the petitioner Rehmat Khan and to defeat the interest of the applicants, agreed for a compromise on the terms that the land in dispute, be cancelled from his name and the allotment be made in the name of the petitioner (Rehmat Khan).
8. That the compromise is not lawful and is designed to paralyse the right of the applicants and it is also against the public policy."
9. Despite the above averments, this Court accepted the compromise between Rehmat Khan and Ibrahim, refused the prayer of Yasin etc. (petitioner herein) and allowed the appeal (of Rehmat Khan) in terms of the compromise vide order dated 19-2-1984.
10. The review petition filed against this order by Yasin etc. (petitioner herein) was dismissed on 20-5- 1984, as not pressed. It is submitted that the review was not pressed because the petitioners had filed suit to challenge the compromise in the Civil Court.
11. But it is obvious that after the compromise had been accepted by this Court on 19-2-1984 and the appeal of Rehmat Khan had been allowed it was not possible for the Civil Court to hear a suit which fundamentally called for setting aside of this Court's order dated 19-2-1984 and not interfered with by its order dated 20-5-1984. The suit was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Civil Court, which order was maintained right upto this Court by its judgment dated 13-11-1985.
12. No good ground for review exists. Dismissed.