2003 PLP 1634 (MLD)
ATTA MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1634 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ATTA MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1634 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1634 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1634 (MLD) (ATTA MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner.
- The suit filed by respondents Nos.4 to 8 in respect of their maintenance allowance was decreed by the Judge Family Court on 2-1-1999 on the basis of a compromise Exh.C.1 placed on the record of the Judge Family Court. The petitioner challenged the said compromise decree on the ground that the learned counsel who appeared for him in the said compromise did not have the requisite authority from the petitioner. During the proceedings the petitioner filed an application to summon three witnesses who are all Advocates practising in-the High Court at Bahawalpur. This application was rejected vide order dated 15-11-2001. Subsequently the application for setting aside the compromise decree was also dismissed by Judge Family Court vide order dated 16-2-2002.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5 & Sched
Suit was decreed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties
Defendant had challenged compromise decree on the ground that counsel who appeared for him in the said compromise did not have the requisite authority from him-- Compromise deed was produced by the parties during the course of proceedings before Family Court and the Court besides exhibiting compromise which had recorded statements of plaintiffs and defendant were present in person
Parties were identified by their counsel-- Defendant being present on the date of compromise, and having made statement supporting said compromise no justifiable reason was shown for interfering in the compromise decree produced before the Trial Court
Appellate Court in circumstances had rightly confirmed order of Family Court whereby application of defendant for dismissing compromise decree was set aside by Trial Court
Concurrent judgments of Courts below could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner. The suit filed by respondents Nos.4 to 8 in respect of their maintenance allowance was decreed by the Judge Family Court on 2-1-1999 on the basis of a compromise Exh.C.1 placed on the record of the Judge Family Court. The petitioner challenged the said compromise decree on the ground that the learned counsel who appeared for him in the said compromise did not have the requisite authority from the petitioner. During the proceedings the petitioner filed an application to summon three witnesses who are all Advocates practising in-the High Court at Bahawalpur. This application was rejected vide order dated 15-11-2001. Subsequently the application for setting aside the compromise decree was also dismissed by Judge Family Court vide order dated 16-2-2002.
2. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed vide judgment dated 27-3-2002 passed by an Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur.
3. The instant writ petition is filed against the said impugned judgment and order.
4. Record perused.
5. The suit for maintenance was filed on 1-9-1998. It was contested by the petitioner. During the course of proceedings before the Family Court compromise Exh.C.1 was produced by the parties. The Judge Family Court besides exhibiting the compromise also recorded the statement of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 (petitioner herein) who was present in person. The parties were identified by their learned counsel.
6. In view of the above mentioned judicial record according to which the petitioner himself was present on the date of compromise and made the statement supporting the compromise, no justifiable reasons is made out for interfering in either the compromise decree dated 2-1-1999 or the order dated 16-2-2002 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner to set aside the compromise decree or the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 27-3-2002 confirming the order of the Family Court.
7. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-808/L Petition dismissed.