Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 550 of 1975, decided on 29th October, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 25‑3‑1975 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 951 of 1974).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑-

--Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal proceedings‑Allegations by petitioners as to no objection given on their behalf by counsel appearing for them being without authority‑Held : Involves determination of a question of fact‑Remedy for petitioners lay in moving Court before whom no objection given and in its absence counsel presumed to have had requisite authority.‑[Question of fact].

Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate and Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 29th October, 1980.

‑The facts giving rise to this petition are that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 6, 7, 14/1, 14/2, 16, 17, 18, 19 to 25 measuring 13 acres 6 kanals 11 marlas of Square No. 33 in Chak No. 25/RB, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, was subject‑matter of dispute between the respondents, Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Sultan, the respondent 1 and in a writ petition filed by Mst. Zubaida Bibi against Sultan in which petition, the petitioners herein were arraigned as respondents. This petition was compromised between Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Sultan the effect of which was that 1/3rd of the said land was given to Muhammad Unsar, son of Mst. Zubaida Bibi and 2/3rd was retained by respondent Sultan and the parties were to be put in possession accordingly by drawing lots in the presence of respectables of the village. The writ petition was disposed of on a statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein that the petitioners bad no objection.

The petitioners now allege that the no objection given on their behalf was unauthorised inasmuch as the learned counsel appearing for them had no authority to make any statement and have the writ petition disposed o in term of compromise arrived at between Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Sultan. Now it is obvious that whether or not the counsel appearing for the petitioner had or had not the authority from the petitioners to state no objection o their behalf is a question of fact and the remedy therefore, for the petitioners was to move the High Court for determination of this question, and in its absence we will be justified in presuming that the counsel had the requisite authority to make the statement on behalf of the petitioners.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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