'Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants-respondents wherein they claimed that the defendants-respondents had agreed to sell them land measuring 60 Kanals for Rs,26,250 vide agreement to sell, dated 27-8- 1979 and had received a sum of Rs,18,700 vide receipt, dated 23-11-1978. The suit was resisted by the defendants-respondents. A During the pendency of the suit parties entered into a compromise and on 9-5-1982 statement of the plaintiffs-petitioners through their counsel was recorded whereby they agreed that the suit be decreed subject to payment of Rs,37,500. It was further agreed that they had received a sum of Rs,18,700 from the defendants-respondents and would receive the remaining amount of Rs,18,800 and would execute the sale-deed in favour of defendants-respondents within a period of two months. A similar statement was also made by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents. Consequently the suit of the plaintiffs-petitioners was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 9-5-1982.
2. The defendants-respondents filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside the decree, dated 9-5-1982 on the ground that they had not authorized their counsel to make said statement. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs-petitioners.
3. As a result of divergent pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether this petition is not competent in view of the preliminary Objection No,1 of the reply on behalf of the respondents/ plaintiffs? OPR
(2) Whether the petitioners are estopped by their own words and conduct to bring this petition?
OPR
(3) Whether this petition is within time? OPA
(4) Whether the judgment and decree, dated 9-5-1982 are based on fraud, misrepresentation, without legal authority, collusion and liable to be set aside on the grounds as contained in the instant petition? OPA (4-A) Whether the decree, dated 9-5-1982 is liable to be set aside to the extent of land measuring 20 Kanals on the grounds asserted by the respondent No,6? OPR
(5) Relief.
4. In support of their stand both the parties adduced evidence and finally the said application was dismissed to the extent of defendants-respondents Nos.1 to 5 but was accepted to the extent of defendant- C respondent No,6 Mst. Sultan Bibi. The plaintiffs-petitioners felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed revision petition and similarly a revision petition was also filed by the defendants-respondents. Both the revisions came up for hearing before the District Judge, Bahawalnagar who dismissed the same vide order, dated 4-1-1989; hence, the instant writ petition.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. The stand of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners is that they had not authorized their counsel to make statement and as such initial decree, dated 9-5-1982 is the result of fraud which has been practised upon them; that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence which has been brought on record in support of their contention and as such the impugned orders suffer from misreading as well as non-reading', of evidence. He, thus, submitted that the writ petition be accepted and the impugned orders be set aside.
7. Conversely, the impugned orders have been supported by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents.
8. It is evident from the facts stated above that decree, dated 9-5-1982 had been passed on the basis of statements of the plaintiffs-petitioners and defendants-respondents through their counsel. The stand of the plaintiffs-petitioners is that they had not authorized their counsel to make such statement. This contention is devoid of any force as their counsel was duly appointed and as such was authorized to make statement on their behalf. It is on the basis of said authority that he made statement on their behalf. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Both the Courts E below have scrutinized the evidence which had been brought on record by the respective parties and thereafter orders, dated 10-2-1988 as well as 4-1-1989 have been passed. The impugned orders as such do not suffer from any irregularity what to speak of material irregularity. Besides this factual position the instant writ petition is not maintainable even on legal score as order passed by the Revisional Court is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Dilshad v. Additional District Judge, Multan and others 1986 SCM R 1396, Mst. Zaidat v. Shahadat and others 1989 SCM R 1392 and Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others 1991 SCM R 970.
9. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Hasan Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam and others PLD 1991 SC 65 to contend that the writ petition is maintainable against an order passed by a Revisional Court. There is no doubt that order passed by a Revisional Court has been held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction in the said authority. The facts of that authority are not identical to the facts in hand. In the said authority it was held that the District Judge had exercised jurisdiction which he did not possess. In the instant case the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 4-1-1989. Thus, the said authority is not applicable to the facts in hand.
10. For what has been stated above it is proved that the impugned order dated 10-2-1988 as well as 4-1-1989 have been passed in accordance with law. There is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.