SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave-to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court dated 22-1-1994 whereby a compromise was recorded, as well as order dated 7-6-1994 which modified the earlier order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers on 22-1-1994.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted a suit for possession and declaration in respect of House No.J/177 situated in Mohallah Gao Shala, Mianwali City. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and judgment and decree of trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court. The petitioner then filed Civil Revision Application before the High Court which was heard on 22-1-1994. It appears that during the course of arguments, the parties entered into a compromise which is reflected in paragraph 2 of the order dated 22-1-1994 as follows:-- "2. Faced with this situation the petitioner as well as the respondent made offer to settle the controversy. The final offer which stands accepted is to the effect that Liaqat Ali respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000 with the Court by or before 23rd April, 1994, in lieu of consideration admittedly yet payable to Mst Anwari Begum deceased. The petitioner as well as the respondent will by the said date procure the presence of the legal heirs of Mst. Anwari Begum, who will be paid Rs.90,000 out of the amount to be deposited by Liaqat Ali and the balance amount of Rs.10,000 will be received by Muhammad Aslam, petitioner, in total discharge and satisfaction of his alleged rights in the house. On deposit of Rs.1,00,000 as undertaken by the due date the house in question shall fully and absolutely vest in Liaqat Ali respondent but failure to do the same will result in declaring the sale--deed dated 13-1-1973 purportedly executed by Mst. Anwari Begum as null and void and ineffective. The house shall then continue to vest. In Mst. Anwari Begum. The appeal as well as suit of the petitioner shall, however, remain dismissed as before.
3. This petition to come up for further proceedings in the presence of the parties and the legal heirs of Mst. Anwari Begum on 23rd April, 1994."
3. It appears that the amount mentioned in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment was not deposited by respondent Liaqat Ali and accordingly, he moved an application for extension of the to deposit the same. The learned Judge in Chambers by order dated 7-6-1994 came to the conclusion that the legal heirs of Mst. Anwari Begum were not coming forward, therefore, Liaqat Ali should deposit Rs.10,000 in Court and for the balance/ remaining amount of Rs.90,000 respondent Liaqat Ali was allowed to furnish a bond to the satisfaction of O.S.D. (JudI.) of Lahore High Court. It was also provided in the said order that the said amount of Rs.90,000 would remain as a charge on the suit property. .
4. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, firstly, contended that in view of the failure of respondent Liaqat Ali to comply with the order of the Court dated 22-1-1994 the case should have been heard on merits and decided in accordance with the law. It is further contended by the petitioner that in any case, the arrangement reflected in paragraph 2 of the order of learned Judge in Chambers dated 22-1-1994 being a consent order, the same could not be varied by the learned Judge in Chambers on 7-6-1994 on the application of respondent Liaqat Ali without the consent of the petitioner. The contentions raised by, the petitioner require examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.