1998 PLP 345 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT HAYAT and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Hakim MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 345 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT HAYAT and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Hakim MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 345 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 345 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 345 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT HAYAT and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Hakim MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Younas Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1997.
- Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Younas Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑4‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in L.P.A. No. 135 of 1967). ‑‑‑‑O.XXIII, R. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dispute between parties relating to residential portion of property in , question‑‑ Compromise between parties‑‑‑Compromise Deed signed by both parties and their counsel was presented in Court praying for acceptance of such compromise‑‑‑Compromise between parties appeared to be in interest of both parties which was likely to put an end to litigation extending over period of four decades‑‑‑Compromise was accepted by Supreme Court with direction that property in question, be transferred to petitioners and respondent, in accordance with compromise deed which would be read as part of Court's order.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Dispute between the parties, petitioners and respondent No. l herein, relates to residential portion of evacuee property bearing No.72/F situate in Kabula Bazar, Arifwala, District Sahiwal. They have, however, entered into a compromise, terms whereof have been set forth in detail in the Compromise Deed which has been signed by both the parties as also by their learned counsel. An application signed by both the parties and their learned counsel has been presented in Court today praying that the compromise may be accepted. The compromise appears to be in the interest of both the parties as it will put an end to litigation extending over a period of four decades. We, therefore, accept the compromise and direct that the property in dispute be transferred to the petitioners and respondent No.1 in accordance with the Compromise Deed marked "C-I" and which shall be read as part of this order. This petition is accordingly converted into an appeal, which is disposed of in terms of the afore-noted compromise. A.A./M-14/S Order accordingly.