1989 PLP 1215(2) (SCMR)
ABDUL SATTAR OURESHI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1215(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR OURESHI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Compromise‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1215(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Compromise‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1215(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1215(2) (SCMR) (ABDUL SATTAR OURESHI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th June 1988.
- ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Contention that there was no power available with the counsel appearing for the petitioners to enter into an agreement with the opposite side‑‑Counsel. had no such power but it was not a case where two Advocates/Counsel of the respective parties, had entered into a compromise‑‑On the other hand record showed that compromise was between the parties and counsel for the petitioner had only made a statement in proof of the fact of that agreement stating that parties had agreed‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court.
- Although it is a question of fact; still assuming for the sake of arguments that the counsel had no such power, it is not a case where two Advocates/counsel of the respective parties, have entered into a compromise. On the other hand the record shows that the compromise was between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners had only made a statement in proof of that agreement; stating That the parties had agreed. That being so, no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑2‑1981 m W.P. 536 of 1981). ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Contention that there was no power available with the counsel appearing for the petitioners to enter into an agreement with the opposite side‑‑Counsel. had no such power but it was not a case where two Advocates/Counsel of the respective parties, had entered into a compromise‑‑On the other hand record showed that compromise was between the parties and counsel for the petitioner had only made a statement in proof of the fact of that agreement stating that parties had agreed‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter against a consent decree, and dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the High Court, mainly on this ground. Learned counsel contended that there was no power available with the counsel appearing for the petitioners to enter into an agreement with the opposite side. Although it is a question of fact; still assuming for the sake of arguments that the counsel had no such power, it is not a case where two Advocates/counsel of the respective parties, have entered into a compromise. On the other hand the record shows that the compromise was between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners had only made a statement in proof of that agreement; stating That the parties had agreed. That being so, no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly is dismissed. M.BA./A‑488/S Petition dismissed.