MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.--- Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, leave is claimed against judgment dated. 30.6.1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore disposing of respondent-Abdul Ghani deceased through LRs' Civil Revision No, 1476-D of 1984 with the following observations: "5. There is an obvious factual controversy between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the statement recorded on 19.10.1972 reflects correctly the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, states that the statement of Abdul Ghani plaintiff had not been correctly recorded. The observations of this Court in the earlier revision petition, as noted above indicate that this factual controversy should have been dealt with and decided by the Trial Court, if necessary, after framing issues and recording evidence thereon.
"6.. In view of the above discussion this case is remanded to the Trial Court, which shall proceed to frame and decide the issues as indicated above. If the issues are decided in favour of the respondents/defendants and it is held that the compromise was correctly recorded on 19.10.1972, the suit shall be decreed in accordance with the terms of the compromise. If, however, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the statement of Abdul Ghani was not completely and correctly recorded, the Trial Court shall ascertain the actual terms of the compromise and decide the to such terms.
"7. Since this is an old matter, which was commenced in 1972 and relates to a sale of land dated 1.7.1964, the Trial Court shall decide the issues as directed within a period of six months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before it by either party. The parties who are represented in this civil revision petition through counsel shall appear before the Trial Court on 20.7.1999. There will be no necessity in the circumstances, to effect service on the parties afresh.
Failure of either party to appear before the Trial Court would be visited with the consequences provided for in the C.P.C.".
2. Mr. Ch. Atta Ullah, learned ASC appearing in support of this petition, has referred to the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan's judgment dated 11.5.1981 passed in the earlier round of litigation in this /is in Civil Revision No. 162 of 1974 to contend that the compromise dated 19.10.1972 was lawful and the same having been withdrawn on 15.4.1982 by the plaintiff, could not be resurrected. The precise plea was that the Trial Court was within its jurisdiction to decide the suit on merits as it did through its judgment and decree dated 8.6.1982 and that the lower Appellate Court was in error in taking the view that with the withdrawal of the application dated 12.10.1972 the compromise recorded on that date become final and binding between the parties and the Trial Court was bound to decide the case in terms of the statement recorded on 19.10.1972.
3. We are afraid the plea being raised by Ch. Atta Ullah loses sight of the fact that his client's case that the statement recorded on 19.10.1972 correctly reflected the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, was controverted by the other side before the learned Judge in Chambers with the assertion that the statement of Abdul Ghani-plaintiff had not been correctly recorded to reach the conclusion that "...The observations of this Court in the earlier revision petition, as noted above indicate that this factual controversy should have been dealt with and decided by the Trial Court, if necessary, after framing issues and recording evidence thereon." (Underlining is for emphasis).
4, Confronted with this, learned counsel had nothing to urge in support of his case that the learned Judge in Chambers was in error in remanding the case to the Trial Court "...:which shall proceed to frame and decide the issues as indicated above. If the issues are decided in favour of the respondents/defendants and it is held that the compromise was correctly recorded on 19.10.1972, the suit shall be decreed in accordance with the, terms of the compromise. If, however; the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the statement of Abdul Ghani was not completely and correctly recorded; the Trial Court shall ascertain the actual terms of the compromise and decide the to such terms."
5. No other point was urged.
6. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.