1971 PLP 186 (SCMR)
FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1971 PLP 186 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 186 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 186 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 186 (SCMR) (FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ishaq Faruqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 10th February 1971.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated the 24th October 1969, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 224 of 1969). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 58(3) & 98‑Grant of Special Leave to Appeal‑Cannot be claimed as a matter of right-- No appeal, as a matter of law, admissible against a consent decree‑Person agreeing to compromise matter in writ petition-- Writ petition, held, withdrawn and High Court justified in disposing of petition based on such compromise.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition seeks a review of our order dated the 24th of October 1969, whereby the petitioner's civil petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 224 of 1969 was dismissed. Leave was declined to the petitioner on the main ground that the decision of the High Court under challenge, which was passed in writ jurisdiction, was based on a compromise, which was effected between the contesting parties, including the petitioner, as duly recorded in the High Court. The review of our order is mainly sought on the ground that we had failed to decide the question whether the High Court was legally right in disposing of the writ petition on the basis of the compromise without adverting to the question raised in the writ petition that the impugned orders of the Settlement authorities were without lawful authorities. Grant of special leave to appeal from this Court cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Essentially, it is a matter of discretion with the Court, which is to be exercised on a judicial consideration of the circumstances of each case. In this case, the petitioner was obviously disentitled to seek the indulgence of this Court to grant him leave to challenge an order of the High Court, which he had invited himself on a compromise, and he cannot be permitted to repudiate it. As a matter of law and principle, no appeal is admissible against a consent decree. By agreeing to compromise the matter, the petitioner virtually withdrew his writ petition from the High Court, for any legal decision other than the one based on the compromise between the parties. There is no substance in this petition, which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.