1985 PLP 577 (SCMR)
Mst. BASHIRAN‑‑Petitioner Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 577 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. BASHIRAN‑‑Petitioner Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 577 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 577 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 577 (SCMR) (Mst. BASHIRAN‑‑Petitioner Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10‑6‑1979 in Writ Petition No. 546‑R of 1978) . ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXIII, r. 3--Parties having entered into a detailed compromise in earlier round of proceedings ‑‑No question of any misapprehension involved‑‑Reopening same dispute in subsequent proceedings disallowed‑‑High Court while disposing of writ petition, making observations going against interest of petitioner, being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 10‑6‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a writ petition arising‑ out of a land settlement case was disposed of with observations going against the interest of the present petitioner, on the ground that the subject‑matter of dispute raised in the writ petition stood concluded by the compromise of the contesting parties in the High Court in an earlier round of proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has while accepting the factual position that a compromise deed took place in the earlier round of litigation in the High Court tried to explain that the petitioner was then under a misapprehension about the legal and factual aspects of each party s rights. And that being so notwithstanding the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 21‑12‑1976 based as it was on the compromise was no bar to the Settlement Authorities re‑opening the same question. We do not agree with him. In the earlier round the parties on the basis of their respective rights first contested the case and the present petitioner (then as respondent No.4) had almost succeeded in respect of the land now in dispute. So much so that the High Court in the said judgment of 21‑12‑1976 made observations, which went in favour of the present petitioner. Thereafter, it was noted and remarked as follows: "However, the learned counsel for the parties have stated that on their own authority and instructions by the representatives of the contesting parties in order to avoid possible prolonged litigation they are prepared to enter into a compromise and have agreed that Killa No.l in its entirely and Killas Nos.2 and 9 of Square No.50 should go to the temporary allottee, Ali Muhammad, petitioner No. l (the predecessor‑in‑interest of the present contesting respondents) whereas, Killas Nos. 3 and 8 should remain vested with the respondent No.4 (now the present petitioner). It is also agreed that the petitioners (respondents herein) shall deliver possession of Killas Nos. 3 and 8 as soon as the existing crops are harvested and the areas become fallow. A sum of Rs.1,000 deposited as mesne profits by the petitioners (respondents herein shall be paid to the respondent No.4 (petitioner herein)." It was a detailed compromise in which there was understandable consideration for the position taken by each party and it had matured into an agreement on the basis of compromise. There was no question of any misapprehension on the part of the petitioner and/or her representative/counsel. The impugned judgment of the High Court in the second round accordingly is unexceptionable. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.