Find a Lawyer

Regular Second Appeal No. 79 of 1978, decided on 22nd March, 1981.

‑‑‑ S. 100‑Second appeal‑Contention that compromise decree is not operative as against appellant having not been served‑Such point not raised by appellant in first appeal‑Held, cannot be raised in second appeal‑Counsel appearing all along and agreeing to compromise in his capacity as counsel for appellant‑Even a appellant appearing in Court and thumb‑marking order sheet Appellant, held further, bound by compromise decree in circum. stances and no room left for High Court for interference in matter.

Syed Faqir Hussain for Petitioners.

Nazir Janjua for Respondent.

Date of hearing : ‑22nd March, 1981, ‑

'This appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Addi tional District Judge, Jhang. dated the 21st January, 1978, confirming the consent decree for possession by pre‑emption of the land in dispute passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, on the 20th July, 1977 arises out of the following circumstances. One Muhammad Siddique son of Noor Din sold 107 Kanals 18 Marlas of land situate in the area of village Lahla Jhola, Tehsil and District Jhang, to the appellants and mutation No. 924 (copy Exh. D% I) was attested in respect of the sale on the 30th January. 1974. The respondents instituted suit to pre‑empt the sale. They claimed superiority of their pre‑emptive right on the basis of their qualification of being co‑owners of the land in dispute. They averred that the sale had taken place for Rs. 15,000 but an ostensible sale consi deration of Rs. 20,000 had been fictitiously entered in the mutation. Though in the first instance the appellants resisted the suit yet ultimately they entered into a compromise with the respondents as a result whereof decree for possession of land on payment of Rs. 20,000 was passed in favour of the respondents. The appellant's first appeal before the learn ed D)strict Court having failed they have come up in second appeal to this court.

The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant's way. ;hat appellants l to 6 were not parties to the compromise resulting in the passing of decree. He maintained that it was counsel for appellants 7 to 12 who made statement agreeing to passing of the decree in favour of the respondents. According to him appellants 1 to 6 had not been served and never put in appearance and therefore, the decree in so far ay operated against them was nullity. This point was not raised by the appellants before the first appellate Court and it is difficult to sustain it in second appeal. Sheikh Abdul Majid, Advocate, Jhang, had all along been giving himself out to he the counsel for the appellants. He made statement agreeing to the compromise in his capacity as counsel for the appellants. Even appellant I had put in appearance in person on the 26^th April ,1977 and thumb-market the order sheet. In these circumstances it is too late in the day to put forth the plea of non-representation of appellant 1 to 6. The appellants in the circumstances are bound by the compromise decree. There is no room for interference with the appellate decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The appeal is dismissed with costs.s

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.