Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DARAZ KHAN VS Respondent: MUZAFFAR KHAN
1998 S C M R 2735
1998 S C M R 2735
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ
DARAZ KHAN and others---Petitioners
versus
MUZAFFAR KHAN---Respondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.525 of 1997, decided on 1st April, 1998
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-3-1997 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Regular Second Appeal No.355 of 1975).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XXIII, R. 3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Petitioners claimed that during course of hearing of appeal before High Court parties had settled their dispute outside the Court but the High Court while deciding appeal did not take into consideration settlement between the parties---Respondent denied alleged settlement and filed affidavit that no such compromise was effected---High Court was, thus, right in not disposing of suit on basis of alleged compromise between the parties---Provisions of O.XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C., had not been violated in any manner by the High Court while dismissing application for decreeing suit, in terms of disputed compromise---Petitioners, however, had not disputed findings on merits of High Court---Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 1st April, 1998.
ORDER
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 28-3-1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Regular Second Appeal No.355 of 1975.
2. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that during the course of hearing of appeal the parties had arrived at a settlement outside the Court on the following terms:--
The respondent rejected the alleged settlement and sworn a affidavit that no such compromise was effected. Thus visualized, the learned Judge in Chambers was right in not disposing of the suit on the basis of alleged compromise between the parties. We do not find that the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. has been violated in any manner by the learned Judge in Chambers while dismissing the petition for decreeing the suit in terms of impugned compromise.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the findings on the merits of the Second Appeal dismissed by the High Court. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.
A.A./D-5/S Leave refused.