1992 PLP 741 (MLD)

This appeal is against an order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge, Kasur on 21st December, 1973, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 19th April, 1973 was set aside.

2. On 20th May, 1970 the appellant filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption of land measuring 18 Kanals 2 Marlas situate in village Siddu Pura, Tehsil and District Kasur which had been purchased by the respondents. During the course of trial of the suit, on 19th, a statement was made by counsel for respondents as also by the appellant that the parties had arrived at a compromise and that respondents admitted the superior right of pre‑emption of the appellant and had no objection if a decree was passed on the payment of Rs.3,5l1U as sale price. The learned trial Court proceeding on the basis of this compromise decreed the suit on 19th April, 1973.

3. On 9th May, 1973, Muhammad Ishaq, respondent No. 1, filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Kasur, against the decree and judgment of the trial Court alleging that he had never authorised his counsel to make any statement on his behalf nor had he entered into any compromise. This appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the respondent No.1 was not present in person at the time when the statement was made by his counsel who was not instructed to make the statement. The Additional District Judge proceeded to set aside the decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit for its decision on merits. This order of the Additional District Judge, has been assailed by the appellant/plaintiff in this appeal.

4. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that on 19th April, 1973, statement was made on behalf of the respondents by their counsel and by Khaws respondent, who was present in person, admitting the factum of compromise between the parties and stating that there was no objection if the suit was decreed. Under Order 3, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. a counsel is fully authorized to act on behalf of his clients and can" enter into a compromise which would be binding on his client. (See Dr. Ansar Hussain Rirvi v. Mazahir Hussain Zaidi and 3 others (1971 SCMR 634). In the present case, therefore, the counsel for the respondents could admit the claim of the appellant in the suit. Even the terms of Vakalatnama fully authorized him to do so. The Additional District Judge was clearly in error while setting aside the' consent decree which was even otherwise not appealable. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is accepted and the order of the Additional District Judge, Kasur is set aside and the decree of the trial Court is restored without any order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑208/L.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.