On 20-12-1995 the respondents Nos.4 to 9 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3. It was stated in the plaint that the State land in suit was put to auction wherein the respondent No.4 was the successful bidder in competition with the petitioner. His bid was accepted and ultimately on 14-7-1987 a sale deed was executed in his favour. Vide Mutations Nos.79 and 80 attested on 31-8-1980, he transferred the said land to respondents Nos.5 to 9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the District Collector, Jhang, that he had made a joint bid alongwith respondent No.4 which was accepted and that the amount was also deposited jointly but his name stood omitted from the said sale deed. Vide order dated 4-2-1989 the Collector sought permission of the Board of Revenue for correction of the sale deed. An appeal was filed which was dismissed by respondent No.3 on 26-6-1989 and ultimately the respondent No.2 allowed the application vide order dated 22-10-1995. All these orders were sought to be set aside with the assertion that respondent No.4 was the sole bidder and consequently sole vendee of the land. The suit was contested by respondents Nos. l to 3 as well as the petitioner. It was asserted that a joint bid was made, the possession was joint and the amount was also paid jointly and as such the order of the respondent No.2 is valid. Issues were framed. Evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was recorded. On 9-2-1998 the respondents Nos.4 and 6 alongwith the counsel for the respondents Nos.4 to 9 made the offer that in case Noor Ahmad Kaleem son of the petitioner states on oath on the Holy Qur'an that the parties were in joint possession till 1987 and that joint bid was made and approved in favour of the respondent No .4 and the petitioner the suit be dismissed. The case was adjourned to 11-2-1998. On this date the said Noor Ahmad Kaleem put in appearance, accepted the offer and made the statement on oath. The suit was dismissed vide order and decree, dated 13-3- 1998. Against this order Muhammad Riaz respondent No.9 filed a first appeal. He contended that he was a minor and that his next friend acted against his interest and proceeded to make the said offer without seeking leave in terms of Order XXXII, rule 7, C.P.C. The learned ADJ, Jhang, agreed with the said contention and while allowing the appeal proceeded to set aside the entire judgment and decree vide judgment, dated 29-5-1999 and remanded back the case for its trial on merits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the cases of Jaffar Abbas and 2 others v. Ahmad and another (PLD 1991 SC 1131) and Talah Safdar and another v. Bashir Ahmad and others (1997 CLC 601) to urge that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and it was not at all necessary to seek leave of the Court. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 to 9 on the other hand has tried to make support the impugned judgment of the learned. ADJ.
3. I have gone through the records, appended with this civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced above the details of the proceedings that took place before the learned trial Court. Now Riaz respondent No.9 was a minor. He was sues through Allah Ditta admittedly his father as a, next friend. It is a matter of record that the said Allah Ditta personally made a statement alongwith the counsel for the plaintiffs in the case making the said offer which was accepted by the petitioner and consequently his son took the oath. In this civil revision as well it is Allah Ditta who is the guardian ad --litem of the said Riaz minor and has engaged the learned counsel who has opposed this civil revision. There is nothing on record to suggest that Allah Ditta had any interest adverse to the minor or that he had acted negligently or that he was collusion with the petitioner or the other respondents. Needless to state that respondents Nos.5 and 6 are the brothers of Allah Ditta while respondents Nos.7 to 9 are the sons of Allah Ditta. In this view of the matter the rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court or Pakistan in the said case of Jaffar Abbas and 2 others, followed by this Court, in the case of Talah Safdar and another becomes fully applicable, the impugned judgment proceeds in direct violation of the said rule and is therefore, without lawful authority. This civil revision accordingly is allowed.
The impugned judgment and decree of the learned ADJ.I Jhang, is set aside and the one passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the respondents Nos.4 to 9/plaintiffs is restored with no order as to costs.