Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 555 of 1984, decided on 10th June, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 3‑3‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 37/11 of 1984).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII r. 3‑ Compromise‑‑Petitioner alleging duress‑‑Not represented in Court by a counsel‑‑Educated lady appearing in Court alongwith her brother of her own accord‑‑Fully aware of nature of dispute‑‑Beneficiary under compromise‑‑High Court, held, justified in accepting and acting upon her statement‑‑Plea of acting under duress not entertained‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances.

Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 10th June, 1985.

.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 3‑3‑1984 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the litigation raging between the parties was disposed of by him in terms of a compromise, which was duly endorsed before him.

Mr. Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had endorsed the compromise under duress because her mother‑in‑law Mst. Amat‑ur‑Rasool was facing contempt proceedings and in order to help her mother‑in‑law an old and respectable lady‑‑the petitioner who had just returned from abroad and was not represented by any counsel went before the Court and made a statement endorsing the compromise.

It is true that the petitioner was not represented by any counsel when she appeared in Court but her counsel, Mr. Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, admitted before us that she was an educated lady and we note that her brother Mr. Amanat Ali was also present in Court alongwith her. She was undoubtedly aware of the nature of the dispute and had appeared before the Court of her own accord and made the statement before him stating that she was aware of the compromise fully endorsed it and was prepared to be bound by it.

The learned Judge in the High Court has further noted that she was a beneficiary in the aforesaid compromise, in that the part of the land which was initially intended to fall to the share of her mother- in‑law would go to her.

In these circumstances, the learned Judge was fully justified in accepting and acting upon the statement of the petitioner and the plea A of duress cannot prevail. It appears that she has now some second thoughts about the correctness of the course followed by her. But this can hardly constitute a ground for upsetting an order passed by the learned Judge, which he could legitimately have made when it was actually passed.

No ground has, therefore, been made out for interference. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.

M. I. 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.