' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs,4,70,000 against the appellant. The suit was filed under Order, XXXVII, C.P.C. On the basis of a pronote allegedly executed by the appellant in favour of the respondents for the said amount. The suit was instituted on 13-6- 1997. The appellant was served in the prescribed manner. He put in appearance and filed an application for leave to appear and to defend. The leave was granted vide order, dated 26-3-1996 subject to furnishing of security by the appellant within seven days. Written statement was filed by the appellant who denied the execution of the pronote and receipt of consideration. Issues were framed on 3-4-1998 and the case was adjourned to 21-4-1998 for recording evidence of the respondents. On the said date learned counsel for the parties sought adjournment as the parties were in process of effecting a compromise. The case was adjourned to 30-4-1998. On the said date again it was reported that the process for a compromise is on and an adjournment was sought.
The case was adjourned to 23-5-1998. On the said date again it was reported that the compromise has not been effected so far and adjournment was sought. The learned trial Court adjourned the matter to 22-6-1998 with the direction either to file a compromise or to lead evidence. On 22-6- 1998 the parties as well as their learned counsel were present. The statement of respondent No,1 and the counsel of the respondents was recorded in the following terms:---{{URDU TEXT}} ' The statement of the appellant and his is leaed counsel was recorded in the learned tems:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' After an recording the said statements the Court learned trial Cou adjourned the case to 2-7-1998 for recording the statement of said Khan. No Akram Khtices were issued to him. On 2-7-1998 counsel for the parties were present and so was said Muhammad Akram Khan but since the appellant was not present the matter was adjourned to 26-7-1998. On 26-7-1998 in the presence of the parties and their learned counsel Muhammad Akram Khan made the following statement:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' After recording the said statement learned trial Court proceeded to pass a decree in terms of the same upon the same date.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant never agreed to the of the case in accordance with the said statement of Muhammad Akram and that at he never agreed to his an appointment as Referee/Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other and, contends that the parties agreed to the decisio of the suit in the manner it has been and in fact the he suit has been decided ance with the statement made strictly in accord by the appellant.
3. We have gone through the records and the material aspects of the case have already been reproduced by us above. A bare perusal of the statement of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court negates the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. His client made a clear statement countersigned by his learned counsel that the suit be decided in accordance with the statement of Muhammad Akram Khan. The proceedings in the suit also show that some efforts were already being made to effect a compromise between the parties which was ultimately effected by Muhammad Akram Khan who made a statement accordingly. We also find that there was a gap of more than a month between the date when the statement of the appellant was recorded and the date when the statement of Muhammad Akram Khan was recorded. In interregnum no objection whatsoever was raised by the appellant and even no malice, or any illegality is attributed to the said Muhammad Akram Khan or the statement made by him. To our mind the parties on 22-6-1998 were fully aware of the details of compromise effected by Muhammad Akram Khan between them and thus, made a categorical statement that the suit be disposed of in accordance with the statement of Muhammad Akram Khan. This is a case where the parties themselves led the Court to decide the suit in a particular manner and the Court has decided it absolutely in accordance with the wishes of the parties. We do not find any force in this R.F.A. And no ground has been made but for interference with the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. The R.F.A. Is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Record of the trial Court be sent back.