1997 PLP 1079 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1995. . AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 2‑4‑1994 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.26/R of 1974 filed by the petitioners, disposing of the same as under:‑‑ "

2. The dispute in this petition pertains to land measuring 6 acres comprising Khasra Nos.16 to 21 of Square No.29 situated in Chak No. 166/E.B, Tehsil and District Vehari. Learned counsel for the parties state that it has been agreed between the parties that petitioners will retain Khasra numbers 16,17, 18 and 19 of 'Square No.29 while the respondents, in lieu of their claim, shall have Khasra numbers 20 and

21. The petitioners undertake to deliver the vacant possession of Khasra numbers 20 and 21 to the respondents by 30th May, 1994 without further litigation or objection. The trees standing, if any, in these two Khasra numbers may be removed by the petitioners by the said dale, that is, 30th May, 1994. R.L‑II Registers of the parties will be amended accordingly. Writ Petition No.26/R of 1974 stands disposed of in terms of the agreement reached between the parties leaving them to bear their own cost. Review petition is also disposed as not pressed. " The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

2. In support of the above petition, Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, learned A.S.C appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Younas Bhatti, who appeared for the petitioners in the High Court, was not competent to enter into the compromise contained in the above‑quoted portion of the impugned order. His further submission was that the compromise should have been recorded in writing and the learned Judges of the Division Bench should have verified the contents of the same from the parties. In furtherance of his above submission he has referred to the case of Messrs Arokey Ltd. and another v. Munir Ahmad Mughal and 3 others (PLD 1982 SC 204) and the case of Umar Bakhsh and 2 others v. Azim Khan and 12 others (1993 SCMR 374).

3. In the first case this Court declined a petition for leave to appeal by holding that the petitioners' Advocate had no motive to enter into a compromise against the interest of his clients and that under the Vakalatnama, Advocate had the power to enter into the compromise on behalf of the petitioners. Whereas in the second case this Court allowed an appeal against the judgment based on a compromise on the ground that the parties disowned the compromise before the Court concerned and not confirmed the contents of the compromise application and alleged compromise entered into was without consideration.

4. Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not been able to show that Mr. Muhammad Younas Bhatti, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners before the High Court, did not have the requisite power under his Vakalatnama to enter into the arrangement contained in the above‑quoted portion of the impugned order, nor he has been able to demonstrate that the above learned counsel had any motive to act without the instructions of the petitioners against their interest.

5. The contention that the compromise should have been recorded in writing and the contents thereof should have been verified by the learned Judges of the Division Bench from the parties is also devoid of any force. Before the High Court if the learned counsel for the parties make a statement, the Court, as a matter of practice, accepts their statement without doubt as to the correctness or authenticity of the same, The above two reports relied upon do not support the petitioners' case. The first cited judgment runs counter to the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, whereas the facts of the second case are distinguishable from the case in hand. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused A.A/B‑300/S Leave refused.