1. Judgment dated 11.07.2012, passed by the Court of District Judge, Ganderbal, in Civil 1st Appeal titled Abdul Rashid Baba & ors v. Haleema Bano & anr based on compromise of the parties, is sought to be quashed, by medium of this writ petition. 2. When learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the position that the judgment and decree is based on compromise, whether writ petition on alleged disputes which are factual in nature, can be maintained, learned counsel submitted that the appeal against such judgment and decree will not lay, that is why he has chosen to file writ petition but it can be treated as a revision petition. In support, placed reliance on the judgment captioned Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & ors v. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur & ors reported in (2009) 5 SCC 162 . Para 48 of the judgment is relevant to be quoted: "48. If the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in a given case it, subject to fulfilment of other conditions, could even convert a revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa in exercise of its inherent power. Indisputably, however, for the said purpose, an appropriate case for exercise of such jurisdiction must be made out". 3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is treated as a revision petition, so has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 CPC. 4. Factual background is that Late Abdul Salam Baba is survived by two daughters Mst. Hajira and Mst. Haleema. Mst. Haleema claimed the property left by the deceased in the capacity of "Khana-nisheen(resident daughter), to the exclusion of Mst. Hajira as being Khana-beeron daughter (married outside khana). This position gave rise to the litigation. Mst. Hajira filed suit for declaration, injunction and partition titled Mst. Hajira v. Haleema Bano & anr before the Court of Munsiff, Ganderbal. 5. On the basis of respective pleadings, as many as nine issues were framed:- 1. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 2. Whether the plaint has been verified by the plaintiff in accordance with law? OPP 3. Whether the suit is time barred? 5. On the basis of respective pleadings, as many as nine issues were framed:- 1. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 2. Whether the plaint has been verified by the plaintiff in accordance with law? OPP 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 4. Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of Land Revenue Act and Agrarian Reforms Act, if so how? OPD 5. Whether the property mentioned in para 4 of the plaint belonged to late Abdul Salam Baba? OPD 6. Whether the suit property is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and is un partitioned? OPP 7. Whether the suit property is liable to be partitioned by metes and bounds among parties to the suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit property has been properly described by the plaintiff? If not, what its effect on suit? 9. Relief? (OP parties) 6. On conclusion of the trial, the findings on issues Nos.1 to 4 were returned in favour of the plaintiff Mst. Hajira whereas findings on issue No.5 to 7 were returned in favour of defendants and finally suit has been dismissed vide judgment dated 19.06.2009. As against the said judgment and decree Civil First Appeal was filed before the Court of District Judge, Ganderbal. The learned District Judge vide detailed order dated 15.3.2012 observed that three issues have remained to be framed, as such, framed three additional issues i.e. (1) Whether the house in dispute is the ancestral house of the parties as such plaintiff is entitled to inherit half of the house? (OPP) (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share out of the survey Numbers 332,350,340,472/1 of village Pandach Ganderbal? (OPP) (3) Whether the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the suit of the partition for the Agrarian land? (OPD) 7. Finally learned District Judge concluded that in order to return finding on the additional issues framed, it shall be proper to direct the court below to receive additional evidence required for the same. Further trial court has been directed to conclude the trial within a period of one month with liberty to seek extension, if circumstances so demand. 8. In compliance thereto, the trial court returned findings on the said issues. Further trial court has been directed to conclude the trial within a period of one month with liberty to seek extension, if circumstances so demand. 8. In compliance thereto, the trial court returned findings on the said issues. Vis-a-vis issue No.1, it has been held that the house in question has been constructed by the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 who shall inherit the same in accordance with Personal Law. Regarding issue No.2, it has been observed that land covered under Khasra Nos.337,340,350,355,472/1 and 384, as per statement of the witness Patwari, Salam Baba is a sharer and as per record he has been recorded in the ownership/tenant column. This issue has also been decided in favour of the plaintiff. Vis-a-vis issue No.3, trial court has observed that the law is settled that partition of Agrarian land falls within the domain of competent authority under Agrarian Reforms Act, as such, the dispute is to be dealt with by the authority in accordance with the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act and not by the Civil Court, therefore, the relief of partition can be entertained by the authority under the said Act. 9. Finally trial court has submitted the records to the Appellate Court where parties were directed to appear on 02.06.2012. 10. As per interim order recorded on the Appellate file on 7.6.2012, copy of the order of the trial court (findings vis-a-vis additional issues) is shown to have been furnished to the counsel for the parties. On 19.6.2012, part arguments were heard and the matter is shown to have been adjourned at the request of counsel for the parties. Then on 21.6.2012 again part arguments were heard. On 29.6.2012, counsel for the appellants was not present, case was adjourned for 09.07.2012. On 09.07.2012 counsel for the parties submitted before the Appellate Court that the parties are trying for amicable settlement, on such count hearing has been deferred for 11.07.2012. On 11.07.2012, the parties have presented a deed of compromise, in support whereof statement of one of the appellants i.e. appellant Ab. Rashid Baba and statement of one of the respondents Mst. Haleema was recorded. Based on the said compromise, judgement impugned dated 11.07.2012 has been passed. 11. Mst. Haleema filed the instant petition seeking quashment of the said judgment dated 11.07.2012. Caveat has been lodged by the legal heirs of Mst. Rashid Baba and statement of one of the respondents Mst. Haleema was recorded. Based on the said compromise, judgement impugned dated 11.07.2012 has been passed. 11. Mst. Haleema filed the instant petition seeking quashment of the said judgment dated 11.07.2012. Caveat has been lodged by the legal heirs of Mst. Hajira because she died during pendency of the appeal and her legal heirs stand brought on record. 12. When this petition came up for consideration on 09.08.2012, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that since Mst. Hajira was dead and her legal heirs were brought on record, so he has filed CMP No.1703/2012 seeking correction of the cause title by substituting names of LRs of Mst Hajira. Counsel for the respondents projected that the petition has been filed against a dead person, as such, it is not maintainable, so he wants to file the objections. At the same time, one Advocate Mr. Shabir Ahmad Masoodi appeared and submitted that he had appeared on behalf of petitioners (defendants) before the Appellate Court and it is with his efforts and the efforts of counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs) before the Appellate Court the amicable settlement was reached and in the process the petitioners got more share than what they were entitled to. He further stated that he was pained to know that the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Court has been arrayed as party/respondent and allegations have been levelled against him which are totally false and it is in view of that, his conscience constrained him to appear before this Court so as to apprise the Court about the actual position, further added that if such allegations are entertained against the judicial officers, then none of the judicial officers shall be in a position to function properly and amicable settlement can never be encouraged. 13. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel stands reflected in order dated 09.08.2012 based on which name of District & Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, arrayed as party/respondent No.1 in the petition, was directed to be deleted. 14. While going through the petition, what will emerge is that the petitioner and her husband would claim entire property to the exclusion of Mst. Hajira (de-ceased) on the ground that Mst. Haleema was married as Khana-nisheen daughter and the petitioner No.2 was brought as Khana-Damad by the estate holder Salam Baba. 14. While going through the petition, what will emerge is that the petitioner and her husband would claim entire property to the exclusion of Mst. Hajira (de-ceased) on the ground that Mst. Haleema was married as Khana-nisheen daughter and the petitioner No.2 was brought as Khana-Damad by the estate holder Salam Baba. Land measuring 5 kanals belong to petitioner No.2 (Khana Damad) as having acquired ownership in terms of Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the suit of the plaintiff (Mst. Hajira) was dismissed by the trial court. The respondent No.1 (Presiding Officer of the appellate court) has constantly pressurized the petitioners to enter into a compromise with the respondents, he has intimidated in the open court to deprive the petitioners from the property, under tremendous pressure petitioners were induced to execute the compromise and on the same date the judgment was passed. The compromise as has been executed is outcome of abuse of judicial process. 15. When the case was taken up for final hearing, at the very first instance learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application tiled for correction of the cause title i.e. to permit him to record names of legal representatives of Mst. Hajira, may be granted. For resolving the controversy, same was permitted. 16. The deed of compromise has been executed and signed which is not denied but all that is projected is that same was executed under pressure when the counsel appearing for the petitioners (defendants) before the Appellate Court, appeared before this Court and stated with all seriousness that it is with his efforts and efforts of counsel for the respondents that the parties settled the matter amicably before the Appellate Court and the petitioners were given more share than was due to them i.e., they have been given ancestral house, shops, cowshed and land beneath and appurtenant to the said house to the exclusion of another daughter Mst. Hajira (deceased) and rest of the landed property has been directed to be divided and shared to the extent of 60% in favour of Mst. Haleema and 40% in favour of appellants(legal heirs of Mst. Hajira). Mst. Haleema had been identified by her advocate when her statement was recorded by the Appellate Court in support of the compromise. 17. Claim of Mst. Haleema and 40% in favour of appellants(legal heirs of Mst. Hajira). Mst. Haleema had been identified by her advocate when her statement was recorded by the Appellate Court in support of the compromise. 17. Claim of Mst. Haleema that she alone is entitled to the property left behind by Salam Baba to the exclusion of another daughter Mst. Hajira (deceased), whether could be permissible, was an issue pending determination before the Appellate Court including all other findings relatable to the jurisdiction but once the parties have entered into a compromise, the Court could have no hesitation in allowing the same. While allowing the compromise, all that Court is to see that the compromise is not void, is not against the statute. The adjustment has to be in accordance with the terms and conditions as embodied in Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 18. From the records it is not discernible that the Appellate Court has, in any manner, exceeded its judicial power. When the parties have come up with a compromise deed which is duly signed by them, they are accompanied by their respective Advocates and in support of the compromise their statements are recorded and they are identified by their advocates, then to say that the compromise was due to pressure, on bird's eye view, shall not be acceptable. Still even if petitioner No.1 has grievance that the compromise is not out of her free will and that she is not inclined to give any portion of the property left behind by her father to her sister (now the legal representatives of her sister), it is a matter which can be sorted out by having recourse to appropriate remedy, as shall be permissible under law. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Appellate Court has also allowed the compromise vis-a-vis land regarding which mutation under Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act has been attested conferring ownership rights in favour of Khana-Damad(son-in-law) i.e. husband of petitioner Mst. Haleema but the records would reveal that mutations under Section 4 and 8 attested in favour of Mohammad Yousuf regarding land covered by Survey Nos.354, 337 and 355 vide mutation Nos.1195 and 1199 have been challenged by Mst. Hajira (deceased) when she was alive before the appellate authority (Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner) and the said mutations have been set aside vide order dated 12.3.2009. Hajira (deceased) when she was alive before the appellate authority (Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner) and the said mutations have been set aside vide order dated 12.3.2009. In the said order it has been observed that the said land in the year 1971 was recorded in self cultivation of Salam Baba(deceased). Mohammad Yousuf (husband of Mst. Haleema) (Son-in-law of Abdul Salam Baba) had styled himself to be the tenant of the land when land was recorded in self cultivation of Abdul Salam Baba. Therefore, the land would never fall within the dispute arising out of provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. It is stated that a revision has been filed against the said order before the revisional authority i.e. J&K Special Tribunal. The observation of the Appellate Court that mutations under Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act shall be null and void is irrelevant because same have been set aside by the Joint Commissioner Agrarian Reforms. Further the fact of the matter, as it appears and as it has been taken by the Appellate Court, is that said land was in ownership of deceased Salam Baba. To say that the Court has exceeded jurisdiction on such count, is totally misplaced. The compromise arrived at in between the parties, in the backdrop of entire records, would not suggest that the Appellate Court proceeded beyond the limits of its jurisdiction. 20. Two daughters were litigation for the property left behind by their father. If in terms of compromise 60% has been given to one daughter i.e. petitioner Mst. Haleema and also the house, shops, cowshed along with land beneath and appurtenant thereto to the exclusion of another daughter i.e. Mst. Hajira, can it still be said that Mst. Haleema has been subjected to injustice. Would it be justice to deprive one daughter of the entire property left behind by her father. Therefore, the compromise arrived at by the parties falls within the scope of Order XXIII of CPC and adjustment thereof in terms of conditions thereof by the Appellate Court is totally in consonance with law. 21. Haleema has been subjected to injustice. Would it be justice to deprive one daughter of the entire property left behind by her father. Therefore, the compromise arrived at by the parties falls within the scope of Order XXIII of CPC and adjustment thereof in terms of conditions thereof by the Appellate Court is totally in consonance with law. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the allegations levelled in the memo of petition, has placed on record four affidavits shown to have been sworn by Ghulam Mohammad Shah, Manzoor Ahmad Baba, Noor Mohammad Shah and Bllal Ahmad Bhat so as to show that the petitioners had signed the compromise agreement in the court room against their will. All these four affidavits are stereotype. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed CMP No.191/2013 seeking permission for placing on record one more affidavit shown to have been sworn by one Muzaffar Ahmad Bania, same was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2013, affidavit, as such, stand taken on record. In the said affidavit it has been stated that the petitioners have been pressurized to settle the case. What shall be the value of these affidavits is better not to be commented upon, otherwise also these affidavits loose significance in view of the statement of Senior Advocate Mr. Shabir Ahmad Masoodi who appeared on behalf of the petitioners before the Appellate Court and then of his own appeared before this Court and submitted that it is in view of his efforts the compromise could be reached and that too, to the advantage of the petitioners as Mst. Haleema has got more than what she was entitled to. That position of a responsible counsel has not been refuted even in the said affidavit nor otherwise challenged. 22. In the upshot, no irregularity, no miscarriage of justice or exercise of jurisdiction not vested, is forthcoming from the records, therefore, this revision petition is dismissed along with connected CMP. 23. Since the petition has been registered as OWP No.961/2012, now it stand treated as revision petition as recorded in para 3 above, therefore, be registered as such. Necessary note to the same effect be recorded in the petition and records, where-ever required. 24. Copy of the judgment along with record be send to the 1st Appellate Court (Principal District Judge, Ganderbal) for information.