2014 PLP 669 (SCMR)
KHADIM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 669 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | KHADIM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 669 (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 2014 PLP 669 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 669 (SCMR) (KHADIM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Ex parte for Respondents Nos.1, 5 and 6.
- Tariq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), 4 and 7 to 9.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2014.
- SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---Malik Saeed Hassan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the appellant says that the civil revision filed by the appellant before the learned High Court was compromised between the parties as per order dated 9-4-2001, but admittedly thereafter the impugned judgment was also passed dated 15-4-2002, dismissing the civil revision on merits in which event the same cannot be sustained.
- 2. To this submission Mr. Tariq Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for respondents says that after the matter had been compromised on 9-4-2001 an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. had been moved by the respondents and per order dated 11-12-2001, the compromise order of 9-4-2001 was suspended.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15-4-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.2301 of 1986.)
Ss. 115 & 12(2)
Dismissal of civil revision on merits despite such consent decree
Appellant had filed civil revision before the High Court during pendency of which both parties compromised and a consent decree was passed
Subsequent to the consent decree, respondent filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., challenging the consent decree/compromise, whereafter High Court decided the civil revision on merits
Application of respondent under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not decided
Without the compromise judgment and decree being set aside under S. 12(2), C.P.C., no order could be passed on merits
Impugned judgment of High Court whereby it decided the civil revision on merits was set aside in circumstances and Supreme Court directed that application filed by respondent under S. 12(2), C.P.C., shall remain pending with the High Court and shall be decided at the earliest
Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, AAG, Punjab along with Asim, Naib Tehsildar, Pasroor and M. Ayub, Patwari on Court's Notice.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.
Malik Saeed Hassan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the appellant says that the civil revision filed by the appellant before the learned High Court was compromised between the parties as per order dated 9-4-2001, but admittedly thereafter the impugned judgment was also passed dated 15-4-2002, dismissing the civil revision on merits in which event the same cannot be sustained.
2. To this submission Mr. Tariq Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for respondents says that after the matter had been compromised on 9-4-2001 an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. had been moved by the respondents and per order dated 11-12-2001, the compromise order of 9-4-2001 was suspended.
3. We have heard both the learned ASCs for the parties and have also perused the record with their assistance.
4. It is quite apparent that there is no order deciding the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed by the respondents in which event without the compromise judgment and decree being set aside under section 12(2), C.P.C., no order could be passed on merits. Consequently, we allow this appeal. The impugned judgment dated 15-4-2002 is set aside. The application filed by the respondents under section 12(2), C.P.C., challenging the consent decree/compromise etc. shall remain pending with the learned High Court and shall be decided at the earliest.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. MWA/K-1/SC Order accordingly.