CH. IjAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 24.000 - against respondent on the basis of Award of Punchait dated 18-3-1991. The contents of the plaint revealed that he and the respondent are joint owner of agricultural land in Mauza Palo Wala. Khalil Ahmad-respondent obtained a loan of Rs. 12, (KK)/- from him and respondent is in possession of his land. Lease money of Rs. 12,000/- was outstanding against him. Respondent/defendant refused to return the land and pay the lease money, whereupon the matter was referred to Punchait vide Award dated 18-3-1991, asked the respondent/defendant to return the loan of Rs. 12,000/- and pay lease money of Rs. 12,000/-; total amounting to Rs. 24,000/- by 30th of June, 1990. Respondent/defendant did not pay the amount in accordance with the term of Award, therefore, petitioner filed the suit.
2. The respondents filed written statement and controverted the contents of the plaint. The learned trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed the following:- ISSUES:
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(2) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try and decide the instant suit? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to bring the instant suit? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is based on mala fide and the defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD.
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover disputed amount from the defendant? OPP.
(6) Relief.
3. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 6-12-1992 decreed the suit. The present respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge which was entrusted to Additional District Judge. Lodhran who vide his judgment and decree dated 3-4-1994 accepted the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge decided Issue No. 5 in the following term:
16. Record particularly the award shows that it has created rights and liabilities in favour of both- the parties. Respondent/plaintiff was to get the statement of partition recorded and withdraw the suits. In response to thai of appellant/defendant was to return the loan, pay lease money and deliver the possession of the land to respondent/plaintiff. Record shows that respondent/plaintiff neither get the statement of the partition recorded nor withdrawal the suit, meaning that by he has not performed the condition of the award on the basis of which he is demanding the fulfilment of his rights, It is a settled law that one cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.
Respondent/plaintiff cannot seek equity without doing equity. Respondent/plaintiff has not come in Court independently on the basis of some loan or on the basis of same lease. He has filed the suit on the basis of Punchait award dated 18-3-1991. He is bound by the terms and conditions of the award. He cannot be allowed to go beyond the award nor any relief can be granted to him beyond the scope of the award or on the basis of some liability admitted beyond the terms of award.
17. The discussion above (in para No. 15) prove that respondent/plaintiff has not fulfilled his liabilities as laid downs in the award. He has not performed his pan of the agreement. He has not done the equity so he can neither claim rights nor equity on the basis of that award. The findings of trial Court on Issue No. 5 are violative of the conditions of award, so those cannot be upheld. The findings of trial Court of Issue No. 5 are. Therefore, reversed. The issue is accordingly decided against the respondent/plaintiff.
4. The leamed counsel of the petitioner contended that findings of the first Appellate Court on Issues Nos. 5 and 3 are erroneous and based on misreading and mis -appreciation of evidence. He further argued that the first Appellate Court has acted with material irregularity while deciding accepting the appeal of the respondent/defendant.
5. The leamed counsel of the respondent supported the judgment of the first Appellate Court and argued that petitioner filed a suit on the basis of the Award of Punchait but the petitioner has failed to act upon the terms of Award, therefore, judgment of the first Appellate Court is valid and in accordance with the evidence on record.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the leamed counsel of the parties. It is admitted fact that the petitioner filed suit on the basis of Award of Punchait but the petitioner failed to discharge his duties/liablities. Obligations according to the decision of Award, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief on the well-known maxim: he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Even otherwise it is basis and fundamental principle of law that thing is to be done in a particular manner it. Must be done in that way. In the present case the mode and manners were described by the Award of Punchait but the petitioner failed to act upon the terms of Award in letter and spirit, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief as the right must be based on some law and the petitioner failed to point out any law. In fact the petitioner filed the suit purely and simply on the basis of the Award without accepting and acting upon the terms of the Award. I have perused the record minutely with the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties and specially read the contents of the Award. I am of the view that findings of the leamed 1st Appellate Court is the result of. Proper appreciation of evidence on record. I am fortified by the judgment reported in 'Bd. Of Inter Edn. v. Khalid Mahmood (N.L.R. 1985 Civil 114).
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.