- (1.)THIS review has been filed against the judgment of this court in civil second appeal No. 19/2005 passed on 18. 3. 2008 whereby the appeal has been decided with the consent of the parties.
(2.)THE grounds taken in the review are twofold; (a) that the concession given by the counsel for the petitioners was not lawful and is in violation of section 23 of the Contract Act which envisages that agreement has to be lawful and (b) that the civil second appeal has been disposed of without hearing on substantial questions of law framed by the court. In order to appreciate the legal premises raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners it is necessary to give brief facts of the case.
(3.)A civil suit was filed by respondent before the trial court at Kathua. The frame of the suit was that respondent-plaintiff was owner of land bearing Khasra No. 65 and this title of the plaintiff was denied by the defendants-petitioners and as a consequence of the denial the plaintiff-respondent faced the threat of dispossession.