1994SCMR2109 (PLP)
Malik MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SALIM AKHTAR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994SCMR2109 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Malik MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SALIM AKHTAR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR2109 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR2109 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR2109 (PLP) (Malik MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SALIM AKHTAR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14‑2‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in S.A.O. No. 20 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑High Court recorded order following the compromise agreement at the instance of counsel for the parties‑‑ Leave was prayed for against the said compromise order on the allegation that petitioner had not, given any instructions to his counsel to get the case disposed of in terms of the alleged agreement as noted in the High Court order and petitioner further denied that he had been consulted by his counsel and that on his instructions the compromise order was passed and the appeal disposed of in terms thereof‑‑‑Supreme Court;, in circumstances, declined to enter into the factual controversy raised on the face of elaborate clear-cut order of the High Court‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was refused‑‑‑Petitioner, if aggrieved of the order of High Court could, however, approach the High Court which passed the order. ‑‑‑[Counsel and client].
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1994. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑During the hearing of S.A.O. No. 20 of 1992, filed by respondents/landlords under section 15(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the order of Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated, 2‑11‑1992 the learned High Court recorded the following compromising order at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties: (a) That the second appeal shall be accepted main judgment shall be set aside and the application seeking ejectment of the respondent filed by the appellants shall be accepted and an order of ejectment shall be passed against the respondent. (b) That the respondent shall be given a period of one year w.e.f. today on expiry of .which period the respondent. shall immediately handover vacant possession of the shops in question to the appellants/landlords without obliging them to file execution proceedings. (c) That the respondent shall to on paying agreed rent as per terms already settled between the parties and shall not damage transfer possession of the shops in question during the interregnum. (d) That in case the respondent fails to vacate the shops in question on or before the stipulated period of time, the landlords shall be at liberty to get possession of the shops in question in execution of the ejectment order passed by this Court today at the cost and risk of respondent. In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the parties the appeal was accepted and disposed of in terms agreed upon vide order dated 14‑2‑1994. Leave is prayed for against the said compromise order on the allegation that petitioner did not give any instruction to his counsel to get the case disposed of, in terms of the alleged agreement as noted in the impugned judgment. Petitioner farther denied that he has been consulted by his learned counsel and that on his instructions the compromise order was passed and the appeal /a disposed of in terms thereof. After hearing the learned counsel we are not inclined to enter into the factual controversy raised before us on the face of elaborate clear cut order of the learned High Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the order he is to approach the learned High Court which passed the impugned order, if so advised. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the petition dismissed. M.B.A./M‑2132/S Petition dismissed.