1992 PLP 816 (CLC)
AHMED DIN‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 816 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | AHMED DIN‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 816 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 816 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 816 (CLC) (AHMED DIN‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali for Appellant.
- Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th October, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑0.111, R.4 & OXXIII, R.3‑‑‑Consent decree on statement of counsel of parties‑‑‑Appeal against ‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit filed by plaintiff was decreed by trial Court in his favour on statements of duly appointed counsel of parties that parties had arrived at a compromise and that defendants had admitted superior right of pre‑emption of pre‑emptor and that defendants had no objection if decree was passed in favour of plaintiff‑‑‑On appeal filed by one of defendants/appellants, consent judgment and decree passed by trial Court was set aside by Appellate Court and case was remanded to decide on merits holding that defendant/appellant was not present in person in Court at time when statement was made by his counsel‑‑‑Counsel of defendant/appellant was fully authorized to act on behalf of his client and could enter into a compromise which could be binding on his client as terms of Vakalatnama duly executed by defendant in favour of his counsel had fully authorised him to do so‑‑‑Appellate Court below in circumstances was clearly in error in setting aside consent decree which even otherwise was not appealable. Dr. Ansar Hussain Rizvi v. Mazahir Hussain Zaidi and 3 others 1971 SCMR 634 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Dr. Ansar Hussain Rizvi v. Mazahir Hussain Zaidi and 3 others 1971 SCMR 634 ref. Asghar Ali for Appellant. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th October, 1991. This appeal is directed against an order of remand passed by the Additional Disrict 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 Sidhu Pura, Tehsil and District Kasur which had been purchased by the respondents. During the course of trial of the suit, on 19th April 1973, 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.3,500 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.l, 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.l 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, a 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 authorised to act on behalf of his clients and can enter into a compromise which would be binding on his client. See Dr. Ansar Hussain Rizvi 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 A 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./A‑54/L Appeal accepted.