' This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 3-6-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, whereby the first appeal of the petitioner was disposed of in terms of compromise reached between the parties resultantly the judgment and decree, dated 9-4-1995 passed by learned Trial Court Khushab, was set aside.
2. The suit of the respondents seeking possession of land measuring 10 Marlas comprised in Ihata No,85, Chak No,63-M.B. Tehsil and District Khushab through demolition of structure constructed thereon was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute vide judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court. The parties are related to each other inasmuch the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the respondent. It was after due contest between the parties that the suit of the respondents was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment, dated 9-4-1995. The petitioner appealed against the above said decree before the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, and during the course of pendency thereof, the parties got recorded their statements thereby stating that the disputed piece of land is agreed to be that of Mst. Maryam Bibi, the mother of the respondents and the sister of the petitioner and that the petitioner be deemed to be in possession thereof for and on behalf of said Mst. Maryam Bibi. The parties also agreed that in view of the compromise aforenoted the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
3. It was on the basis of compromise aforenoted that the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court was set aside and the appeal was disposed of in terms of compromise reached between the parties vide judgment and decree, dated 3-6-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab.
4. The above said judgment and decree has been assailed in the present revision petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not authorised his counsel to offer the compromise aforenoted. On being confronted with the statement duly thumb-marked by the petitioner himself whereby he agreed and consented to the compromise, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in fact the whole affair was misrepresented to the petitioner with the result that he thumb-marked the statement under a misconception as to whole affairs.
5. I am afraid the argument is absolutely misconceived as the proof thereof requires recording of evidence which cannot be done in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Needless to add that presumption of correctness is attached to the proceedings taken and recorded by a Court of law and, even otherwise, it is now well-settled that a consent decree is not appealable muchless revisable. The petition is found to be meritless, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.