' Shortly narrated the facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that Rehmanuddin, respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Ala Ilaqa Qazi, Dir Pain, Timargara, against Kachkol and Khaista Muhammad, for declaration-cum-possession through partition with regard to 1/3rd share in suit house situated in Takney Bala District Dir. The suit was contested on all grounds legal as well as factual. Learned Illaqa Qazi Chakdara, seized of the matter allowed the suit by his judgment and decree, dated 6-4-2000 which was maintained in appeal by learned District Judge, Dir through his judgment and decree, dated 15-5-2000. The petitioner moved an application seeking review of judgment and decree, dated 15-5-2000 but the application was dismissed vide order, dated 26-6-2000.
2. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has approached this Court by way of filing instant revision petition impugning the validity of judgments and orders dated 15-5-2000 and 26-6-2000 of learned District Judge and judgment and decree, dated 6-4-2000 of the learned trial Judge.
3. Miss Nusrat Yasmeen, Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge adopted a novel method of proceedings in the matter and decreed the suit in a slipshod manner without application of mind and the learned Appellate Court had no legal justification to dismiss the appeal in limine in total deviation of the provisions of section 96, C.P.C. Read with Order XLI, rule 11. Concluding the arguments, she maintained that a proper trial was necessary and the compromise alleged to have been effected between the parties on 20-11-1998, should not have been made basis of decision. To support the pleas, she placed reliance on Begum Hamayun Zulfiqar Ismail and another v. Begum Hamida Saadat Ali 1968 SCM R 828, Abid Hussain v. Mst. Afsar Jehan Begum and another PLD 1973 SC 1, Mst. Khurshid Begum v. Mir Muhammad and 8 others 1990 CLC 1614 and Muhammad Ibrahim v. Malik Akhtar Ali and 15 others 2001 CLC 1323.
4. Mr. Murtaza Khan Durrani, Advocate, on the other hand, on the strength of cases reported in Sheikh Mahmood Ahmad v. Dr. Ghaith Pharaon and 3 others 1987 CLC 2131 and Maulvi Salamat Ali Khan v. A.R. Muhammad Siddique PLD 1952 Dacca 137 maintained that the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are the result of correct appreciation of material on record and warrant no interference of this Court.
5. Kachkol petitioner and Rehmanuddin and Khaista Muhammad. Respondents are real brothers.
The dispute between the parties relates to 1/3rd share in suit house. Kachkol in his written statement submitted on 25-7-2000 has clearly pleaded that suit house is not ancestral property and that he is owner of the same by virtue of purchase. There is nothing on the file in support of the assertion. During the proceedings statements of Kachkol and Khaista Muhammad were recorded which clearly indicate that prior to the institution of the suit a compromise was effected between the parties on 20-11-1998 in terms whereof Kachkol received Rs,10,000 from Khaista Muhammad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that terms of compromise are ambiguous and not clear and the Court in order to arrive at a correct conclusion was required to record evidence. The omission on the part of the Court to provide an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence has resulted in manifest injustice. The submission of the learned counsel is not tenable. The execution of compromise stands fully established through the deposition made by the parties at the trial Court. The mere assertion of the petitioner that he was not party to the compromise and no such compromise had been effected in this case, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the {{PAGE CUT}} same, is of no consequence. It stands proved parties had effected a compromise on 20-11-19c n L) the suit was decreed. It is true that consistent pr is that first appeal be not dismissed in limine I undisputed but in the present case the facts straightforward and the learned Appellate Court dismiss the appeal in limine and maintain the impugned decree of the trial Court. Both the Courts below have .Given concurrent finding of facts and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The case-law cited on behalf of the petitioner is distinguishable and speaks of the different situation. It is of no help to the petitioner. The revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. {{PAGE CUT}}