Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BAKHSH VS Respondent: Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Fazal Karim, Ajmal Mian Title: MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM and others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,852-L of 1994 S.A.O. No,24 of 1993 Date of Judgment:1994-12-18 Reported As: 1996 SCMR 1789 Result: Leave refused
Judgment ORDER ' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 10-5-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in S.A.O. No,24 of 1993 filed by the petitioner against the order of ejectment dated 6-2-1993 of the learned District Judge, in Civil Appeal No,103/14 of 1992, disposing of the same in the following terms:-- "Appeal was argued at length by Qazi Umar Draz, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. At the end, second appeal was not pressed and the appellant agreed for time till 31-12-1994 to vacate the shop in question and surrender its possession to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents consented to for allowing the agreed time to the appellant for vacating the shop. ' Upon the above agreed premises, second appeal is dismissed; appellant is allowed to vacate the shop in question on or before 31-12-1994, subject to payment of agreed monthly rent in advance before 15th of each calendar month. Default in payment of rent for two consecutive months shall authorize the respondents to execute the eviction order before the expiry of the agreed time." 2. From the above quoted portion of the order, it seems that it was a consent order passed after arguments were heard at length. It is apparent that the learned Judge in Chambers was not inclined to admit the above S.A.O. Thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, sought time to vacate the shop on or before 31-12-1994. The contention of the petitioner that the above consent was given without his instructions, cannot be accepted. As stated above, when the aforesaid S.A.O. Came up for hearing, it was argued at length. It appears that when the learned counsel for the petitioner found that his :above S.A.O. Was going to be dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers, he acted in good faith by obtaining more than six months for the petitioner. The above
---
## Page 2
bona fide act on the part of the Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner, cannot be said as not binding on him. Leave is refused.