2000 PLP 1743 (CLC)
MUNEER AKHTAR‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1743 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, J |
| Parties | MUNEER AKHTAR‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1743 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1743 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1743 (CLC) (MUNEER AKHTAR‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Appellant in person. Chaudhry A. Rashid for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Counsel and client‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Authority of counsel to compromise‑‑‑Client had stated that he had never instructed his counsel to give an undertaking or to make statement before Court for having agreed to vacate premises in dispute on or before specified date and that his counsel had no authority to compromise the matter on his behalf‑‑‑Contention of client was repelled because in Vakalatnama filed in Court, client had authorised his counsel to withdraw or compromise proceedings‑‑‑All acts authorisedly taken by duly appointed counsel being binding on party appointing the counsel, statement relating to vacation of, premises in dispute, being very much subject‑matter of dispute before Court, was validly made by duly appointed counsel‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.III, R.4. Mst. Noor Jehan v. Azmat Hussain Farooqui 1992 SCMR 876 ref.
Judgment & Decree
1. By this listed application, the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 2‑11‑1998, passed on the joint statement signed‑ by the learned counsel for the parties, disposing of the appeal on the basis of the terms and conditions embodied in the joint statement, may be recalled as the appellant had neither instructed his counsel to make a statement nor had agreed to vacate the premises in dispute on or before 1‑2‑1999. This application is supported by the affidavit of the appellant, wherein he has stated ‑that he never instructed his counsel to give an undertaking or statement before this Court for having agreed to vacate the premises in dispute on or before 1‑2‑1999 and further that his counsel had no authority to compromise the matter on his behalf. It was further submitted that the order, dated 2‑11‑1998 was of no legal consequence and void as his Advocate had played fraud, which resulted in deprivation of his valuable rights. The listed application is without any substance inasmuch as in the Vakalatnama, filed . by Mr. Abdul Wajid Wayne, Advocate, he was authorised by the appellant to withdraw or compromise the proceedings and all acts authorizedly taken by a duly appointed Advocate, are binding on the party. In the case of Mst. / Noor Jehan v. Azmat Hussain Farooqui 1992 SCMR 876, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that authority to compromise given to an Advocate would not empower the Advocate to compromise dispute which was not subject‑matter of the case. Statement relative to vacation of the premises in dispute was very much the subject‑matter of the appeal and the Advocate for the appellant could have validly settled/compromised on the issue relating to transfer of promotion. 'The Supreme Court observed that a' counsel has ample authority to do whatever he considers best for his client and such acts are binding upon the client unless limitations have been imposed upon his authority. Upon the above discussions, I find that the listed application is without any substance and merits no consideration. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.
2. In view of the order at Serial No.1, this application has becomel infructuous and is dismissed as such. H.B.T./M‑557K Application dismissed.