1. ' Petitioner through this Constitutional petition has assailed the orders dated 26-5-1990 and 1-12- 1990 passed respectively by the Civil Judge, Kharian, and the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhelum, dismissing his application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
2. ' The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration on 21-2-1989 against the respondents assailing the registered sale-deed No, 2369 dated 20-10-1980 and consequent Mutation No,661 dated 28-7-1988 before a Civil Judge at Kharian. The defendants/respondents controverted the stance taken by the petitioner/plaintiff and claimed special costs. Thereafter, on 9th of December, 1989 the petitioner moved an application for unconditional withdrawal of his pending suit. At this move, learned trial Court recorded the statements of the petitioner Lal Khan as well as his learned counsel and dismissed the suit as withdrawn on the same day. The petitioner subsequent thereto moved an application on 17-12-1989 for the restoration of the suit, which application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 7th of February, 1990 as being not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application on the 11th of March, 1990 under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. On the ground that since the respondents/defendants have failed to perform/fulfil the conditions of the compromise, as such the dismissal/withdrawal of the suit was effected through fraud and misrepresentation and prayed for the decision of the suit on merits. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 26th of May, 1990 dismissed this application observing that no fraud or misrepresentation was practised upon the petitioner for the withdrawal of the case. The petitioner filed a revision petition which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, vide order dated 1-12-1990. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the suit as withdrawn without recording the contents of the compromise. It is argued that it was the imperative duty of the learned trial Court first to satisfy itself respecting the terms of the compromise and then to order the withdrawal. This grave omission on the part of the trial Court has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Fateh Din and another v. Bal Mukand and others AIR 1936 Lahore 963.
4. ' I have considered the contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish that any fraud has been practised upon the petitioner. It was petitioner/plaintiff, who unilaterally exercising his right under Order 23, Rule 3, C.P.C. Moved an application for unconditional withdrawal of the suit. The respondent/defendant was not even present . The case reported as Fateh Din and another v. Bal Mukand and others AIR 1936 Lahore 963 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is completely distinguishable as in that case a prayer was made that the compromise be recorded and the decree be passed according to the same while the opposite-party denied the existence of the compromise. But in the case in hand respondents/defendants never appeared at the time of withdrawal of the suit as the same was solely petitioners'/plaintiffs' unilateral venture. It was he, who himself approached the trial Court for the unconditional withdrawal of the suit and accelerated the date from 14-1-1990 to 9-124989, on which date application for withdrawal was submitted unilaterally. Even a bald reference was not made to the terms of the compromise in the aforesaid application. This being the situation since it was a simple case of withdrawal initiated by the petitioner/plaintiff himself as such no illegality was committed by the learned trial Court in not recording the terms of the alleged compromise. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Mt. Mulia v.
5. Partab 1924 Nagpur 325 wherein it is held as under:- "The present case is not an unusual one. Lately several parties to appeals in this Court have intimated through their pleaders that the appeal is compromised, but failed to appear to put in the compromise or to ask for a decree in terms of the compromise. It should be widely known that unless they do that and if they allow the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution; they can get no help from the Court if one of the parties resiles from the compromise, .And must seek other remedies."
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect in the impugned ordeRs, Resultantly, I am not persuaded to interfere in my Constitutional jurisdiction and dismiss this writ petition in limine.