Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 343 of 1980. decided on 11th August, 1981.
(On appeal from the order, dated 8‑10‑1979 of the Lahore High Court, in C . M . No. 5 of 1979 in Writ Petition No. 1224/ R of 1974) .
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) a 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96(3)‑ Compromise‑‑Writ petition disposed of on basis of compromise between parties‑‑Subsequent application moved by successors‑in‑interest under Ss.151, 152 t 153, C.P.C. for correction and clarification of decision, disallowed‑‑Order of disallowing such application impugned‑‑Petitioners not allowed to re‑open matter already settled by compromise‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Ashraf Falahi, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑.Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th August, 1981.
Ghaus Muhammad, the predecessor‑in- interest of petitioners 1, 2 and 3, and Mst. Aimna Bibi petitioner No. 4 were allotted land in Village Kul Bajwa. However, 350 units of Ghaus Muhammad and 430 units of Mst. Aimna Bibi remained pending for allotment in the village. Ch. Abdur Rehman, respondent No. 3, who had already been allotted land equivalent to 756 units in Village Data Groaya, was further allotted, on 30‑9‑1964, land equal to 702 units in the said village Kul Bajwa, which thus gave his 498 units in excess of his total entitlement of 962 units. The petitioners on coming to know of this allotment agitated the matter, which, in due course, came up before the High Court in the petitioners' Writ Petition No. 1224/11 of 1974. The writ petition was, however, disposed of on 7‑5‑1978 on the basis of the compromise reached between the parties, according to which an area measuring 56 Kanals each would go to Ghaus Muhammad and Mst. Aimna Bibi from the area under the allotment of Ch. Abdur Rehman in village Kul Bajwa. Ghaus Muhammad, however, died shortly thereafter, i.e, on 19‑6‑1978. The petitioners moved on 10‑3‑1979, an application under sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. for correction and clarification of the aforesaid order of the High Court, dated 7‑5‑1978, so that the land held by Ch. Abdur Rehman in excess of his entitlement could go to the petitioners in satisfaction of their still pending units. The application was, however, dismissed on 8‑10‑1979 for the reason that they could not be allowed to reopen the decision based upon a compromise merely because they still had some unsatisfied units pending.
2. It has been argued before us that even after giving effect to the compromise, 403 units of the petitioners still remained pending and that Ch. Abdur Rehman was holding land in excess of his entitlement which would not only go to satisfy the said pending units but would also leave some area which would revert to the State. We are afraid, the ground taken will not justify the reopening of the matter already settled by a compromise between the parties who had been aware even at that time that some units would still remain unsatisfied after the compromise. The petition for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
M . I . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer