' The suit filed by respondents Nos.4 to 8 in respect of their maintenance allowance was decreed by the Judge Family Court on 2-1-1999 on the basis of a compromise Exh.C.1 placed on the record of the Judge Family Court. The petitioner challenged the said compromise decree on the ground that the learned counsel who appeared for him in the said compromise did not have the requisite authority from the petitioner. During the proceedings the petitioner filed an application to summon three witnesses who are all Advocates practising in the High Court at Bahawalpur. This application was rejected vide order dated 15-11-2001. Subsequently the application for setting aside the compromise decree was also dismissed by Judge Family Court vide order dated 16-2-2002.
2. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed vide judgment dated 27-3-2002 passed by an Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur.
3. The instant writ petition is filed against the said impugned judgment and order.
4. Record perused.
5. The suit for maintenance was filed on 1-9-1998. It was contested by the petitioner. During the course of proceedings before the Family Court compromise Exh.C.1 was produced by the parties.
The Judge Family Court besides exhibiting the compromise also recorded the statement of the plaintiff and defendants No,1 (petitioner herein) who was present in person. The parties were identified by their learned counsel.
6. In view of the above mentioned judicial record according to which the petitioner himself was present on the date of compromise and made the statement supporting the compromise, no justifiable reasons is made out for interfering in either the compromise decree dated 2-1-1999 or the order dated 16-2-2002 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner to set aside the compromise decree or the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 27-3-2002 confirming the order of the Family Court.
7. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.