1989 PLP 1349 (SCMR)
SALAMAT ALI Petitioner Versus TARIQ & COMPANY‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1349 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal. JJ |
| Parties | SALAMAT ALI Petitioner Versus TARIQ & COMPANY‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1349 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1349 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1349 (SCMR) (SALAMAT ALI Petitioner Versus TARIQ & COMPANY‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 28‑2‑1983 of the Lahore, High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.36‑D of 1983). ‑‑‑O.XVII, R.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Plaintiffs suit decreed on defendant's failure to produce evidence‑‑On defendant's appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties whereby defendant agreed to deposit the decrial amount and plaintiff agreed that on such deposit, defendant's appeal be accepted and case remanded to Trial Court for receiving defendant's evidence‑‑Defendant failed to satisfy terms of the compromise with regard to the deposit, but instead filed a petition for review of appellate order of remand which was dismissed as also his revision‑‑Defendant's contention, before Supreme Court was that counsel appearing for defendant in support of his appeal had no authority to enter into the compromise nor were there as such instructions to the counsel‑‑High Court had adequately dealt with such factual contention raised from defendant's side‑‑No error having been pointed out in the order of the High Court, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
NIUHANIMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a suit for recovery of money, against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The trial Court decreed the respondent's suit on failure of the petitioner to produce evidence. Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was applied against him. On petitioner's appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. The petitioner agreed to deposit the decretal amount and the costs of the suit; on the performance of which condition, the respondent agreed "petitioner's appeal might be accepted" and case remanded to the trial Court for receiving petitioners evidence. The petitioner failed to satisfy the terms of the compromise with regard to the deposit. Instead he filed a petition for review of the appellate order of remand, which was dismissed. His civil revision also having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel for obvious reasons on account of the impediment of the compromise, could not raise any arguments so far as the merits of the case are concerned. He, however, contended that the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in support of the appeal, had no authority to enter into the compromise nor were there any constructions to the counsel. The learned Judge in the High Court adequately dealt with this factual contention raised from the petitioner's side. No error has been pointed out in the approach followed by the High Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. AA./S‑297/S Leave refused