Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 606 of 1979, decided on 13th April, 1983.
(On appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 14‑3‑79 and 13‑5‑75 passed in Review Application No. 73 of 1976 and Writ Petition No. 316/R/ 1970).
‑. Art. 185(3)‑Compromise‑Petitioner trying to avoid compro mise ‑ Compromise approved by counsel of petitioner and not challenged ‑ No ground appearing justifying interference with compromise‑No scope for petitioner to avoid compromise in circum stances‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Shehzad Jahangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 13th April, 1983.
The petitioners who are brothers inter se, seek leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25‑3‑79 whereby their application ostensibly seeking clarification but in reality seeking avoidance of compromise given effect to by the Court was dismissed.
The two petitioners alongwith their third brother Habib Ahmed had protracted litigation with respondent No. 1 (Mst. Hanifan Bibi). It appears that a compromise was arrived at in the presence of the counsel parties and among others, of Habib Ahmed. In terms thereof order was passed by the Court disposing of the constitutional petition pending in the High Court. The petitioners wanted to avoid the compromise order on the ground that they were not present, that they had not given instructions nor consented to such a compromise and their counsel who approved it was not authorized by them to do so. The learned Judge in the High Court held that the compromise was arrived at by the applicants' brother and their counsel and the same was dictated in their presence in open Court which they accepted. There was no ambiguity or doubt which may require clarification and the application was dismissed.
The petitioners want to avoid the compromise. We do not find on the facts contained in the various decisions concerning the dispute between the parties any scope whereby the petitioners may avoid the compromise. Their counsel had approved of it. He has not challenged it. There is otherwise also no ground appearing which may justify interference with it. There is no merit in the petition and the leave to appeal is refused.
M. Z. M.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer