Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM FATIMA VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN
1988 S C M R 921
1988 S C M R 921
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.85 of 1988, decided on 20th March, 1988.
(From the order dated 23rd November, 1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.3038 of 1985).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.III, R.4‑ West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.15‑ Ejectment‑‑Compromise by counsel‑‑ Challenged in writ jurisdiction‑‑On statement of petitioner's counsel before Appellate Court that parties had compromised, appeal allowed to be withdrawn in terms of compromise‑‑Petitioner subsequently challenged appellate order in writ petition which failed‑‑Plea that withdrawal of appeal by counsel was unauthorized, repelled‑‑Leave to appeal refused‑‑Petitioners allowed two months time on the condition that they would vacate premises voluntarily after expiry of said period and pay rent for each month.
Naveed Sheryar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 1988.
ORDER SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 23‑11‑1987 whereby the constitutional petition of the petitioners and two others from the order dated 11‑5‑1985 of the District Judge, Sialkot, was dismissed.
2. From an order of ejectment passed against them by the Rent Controller, on the application of respondent No.1 the petitioners and two others filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sialkot. On 11‑5‑1985, their counsel Mr. Muhammad Akram, .Advocate, made a statement before the learned Judge that the parties had entered into a compromise and in accordance thereof the appeal should be allowed to be withdrawn and they be given a period of 6 months to vacate the property in dispute. The learned District Judge disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise. On 11‑7‑1985, the petitioners alongwith two others, namely, Muhammad Khalid and Ahmad Hussain, filed a constitutional petition in the High Court to challenge the order of the learned District Judge. Although they did not dispute in the petition that they had engaged Mr. Muhammad Akram, Advocate, as their counsel, their grievance was that before allowing the appeal to be withdrawn, the learned District Judge should have held an inquiry and called them to find out whether a compromise had in fact taken place. A learned Single Judge in the. High Court found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed it. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioners that the withdrawal of the appeal by Mr. Muhammad Akram, was unauthorised. We would accordingly dismiss this petition. However, the petitioners are allowed a period of two months to vacate the property in question on the understanding that they would voluntarily surrender its possession in favour of respondent No.1 immediately on the expiry of this period without involving the latter in any further proceedings in respect of the house and further that they shall pay the rent of the house before the 15th of each succeeding month.
M.I./G‑73/S Petition dismissed.