AMANULLAH vs ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER
This miscellaneous application sought the rehearing of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal that had previously been dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner contended that the opposite party had resiled from the settlement agreement that originally prompted the withdrawal of the petition, thereby necessitating a rehearing on the merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the application as misconceived. The Court held that since the petition was dismissed upon the express prayer of the petitioner in the presence of both parties, the subsequent breach of the underlying settlement agreement by the opposite party did not constitute valid grounds to recall or set aside the consent order. The Court clarified that while the petitioner might possess other legal remedies to address the breach of the settlement, the withdrawal of the petition was a final act that could not be undone by simply seeking a recall of the consent order. The principle established is that a consent order dismissing a petition as withdrawn cannot be reopened due to a subsequent breach of the settlement agreement.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal, dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to a settlement, be reopened if the opposite party subsequently resiles from that settlement?
- Does the breach of a settlement agreement provide sufficient grounds to recall a consent order dismissing a petition?
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This miscellaneous application seeks a rehearing of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 945 of 1976, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on the 26th of June, 1979, with the following order :- "The counsel for the parties present along with their clients, state that the parties have arrived at a settlement and they do not want to prosecute this case any further. Thus pray for its withdrawal."
2. ' It is submitted that the opposite-party has resiled from the settlement, which had led to the withdrawal of this petition, and, therefore, It is necessary that the case be re-heard on merits.
3. The application is clearly misconceived, as the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on the prayer of the petitioner. And in the presence of both the parties. If the opposite-party has now resiled from the settlement previously arrived at, the petitioner may have other legal remedy open to him, but this circumstance would not justify a recall of the consent order made by this Court on the 26th of June, 1979.
4. ' This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION vs RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE 1992 PLD Lahore 305
- AMJAD MAUK vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 5 others 1992 MLD 31
- A. R. KHAN vs P. N. BOGA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR 1987 PLD Supreme Court 107
- ZAHOOR MUHAMMAD QURESHI vs SADRUDDIN 1986 MLD 279