Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 878 of 1976, decided on 30th April, 1979:

S. 115 read with O. XXIII, r. 3-Compromise in Revision Permissible by virtue of S. 141, C. P. C. to apply O. XXIII, r. 3, C. P. C. to proceedings in revision--No impediment, held, in allow ing compromise in Civil Revisions. [Revision (civil)].

Mst. Hamlda Begun v. Mst. Murad Begum and others P L D 1975 S C 624 ref.

Syed Muhammad All Zaidi for Petitioners.

Manzoor Hussain Sial for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 30th April, 1979.

By this judgment I propose to dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 878/1976 and 1083/1976.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Mst. Sahib Khatoon and Nasim Akhtar petitioners in both the Civil Revisions as also the respondent Khan Muhammad instituted separately suits to pre-empt the sale of land in dispute. The learned trial Court decreed the suits of both the parties by its judgment dated 11-7-1974 by passing a joint decree for possession of the suit land through pre-emption in favour of the petitioners and respondent No. 2, rival pre-emptor to the extent of their respective shares as determined under Issue No. 7, i.e. petitioner No. 1 (I/8 share), petitioner No. 2 (1/2 share) and respondent No. 2 (3/8 share).

3. In appeal before the first Appellate Court the suit of the petitioners was dismissed whilst that of respondent No. 1 Khan Muhammad was decreed. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioners have come up in these revisions.

4. The petitioners and respondent No. 1 being closely related to each other entered into a compromise which was submitted in this Court for being recorded and for passing of a decree in accordance therewith. The compromise reached was that respondent No. 1 Khan Muhammad was to forego his right of pre-emption in favour of the petitioners and resultantly the suit of the petitioners out of which Civil Revision No. 1083/1976 had arisen, was agreed to be decreed, whilst suit of Khan Muhammad respondent No. 1 out of which Civil Revision No. 878/1976 had arisen, was to be dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs in both the revisions.

5. The question arising in this case primarily, is as to whether a compromise can be allowed in a revision petition. Having given anxious consideration to the matter, I have come to the conclusion that it can be so done. In this connection it may be observed the by virtue of provisions embodied in section 141, C. P. C. it is permissible to apply Order XXIII, rule 3, C. P. C. to proceedings in revisions as well. Otherwise also there appears no impediment in the matter of allow a compromise in a Civil Revision. To my mind the best form of justice is what the parties decide upon inter se. There thus exists no reason m principle to discountenance the composition by the parties of their -differences in a revision petition.

6. It may also be pertinently added that Holy Qur'an regards composi tions with favour. Reference is respectfully made to Surah IV, Verse 128 and Surah XLIX, Verse 10 of the Holy Qur'an.

7. The principle laid in Holy Qu r'an, therefore, is that compositions of disputes should be looked with favour. It has also been observed in Mst. Hamlda Begum v. Murad Begum and others (1) at pages 650, 651 as under :-

"It seems to us that it is an appropriate case where mention may be made of the directives enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973), regarding the enforcement of Muslim law. The preamble to the Constitution enjoins, inter alla, that the Muslims of Pakistan shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and require ments of Islam as set out in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah." This directive is then repeated in Article 31 of the Constitution as one of the Principles of Policy. Finally, it is provided in clause (PLD1975SC6241) of Article 227 that all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah . . . . and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions." The subsequent Articles contained in this Part of the Constitution, namely, Part IX, proceed to provide a machinery for implementing these directives and Principles of Policy. While the responsibility for bringing the existing laws in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam, and ensuring that no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions, must rest with the executive and the legislative organs of the State, responsibility also devolves on the Judiciary to implement the sprit underlying these provisions of the Constitution . . . . . . ."

In view of the above position, it is the responsibility of judiciary in Pakistan to implement the spirit underlying the Islamic Provisions of the Constitution.

8. Keeping all these considerations in mind I am inclined to the view that provisions of Order XXIII, rule 3, C. P. C. ought to receive a liberal and beneficial construction. Accordingly I hold that compromise is per-emissible under Order XXIII, rule 3, read with section 141, C. P. C. as regards the controversy involved in the present revision petitions.

9. I had recorded the statements of the parties on 30-4-1979. In the light of these statements and in view of the position that the compromise is lawful and also in the interest of minor petitioner No. 2, I accept these revision petitions in terms of the compromise leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly the suit out of which Civil Revision No. 878/ 1976 had arisen shall stand dismissed whilst that out of which Civil Revision No. 1083/1976 had arisen shall stand decreed in favour of the petitioners on payment by them of the pre-emption money as determined by the Courts below, viz. Rs. 990 up to 2-9-1979.

K. M. A. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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