AHMED NAWAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge the judgment of the Lahore High Court arising from an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. is competent to challenge a previous consensus order/judgment arrived at between the parties in civil revisions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. was not competent against an order passed with the consensus of the parties in earlier proceedings, and consequently declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that a compromise or consensus order attained in judicial proceedings cannot be evasively challenged through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
- Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is competent against a consensus order passed by the court?
- Can a party challenge a compromise judgment previously arrived at with consensus in civil revisions?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, has been filed to challenge the judgment, dated 13-9-2004 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,748 of 2004.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that in earlier round of litigation the Civil Revisions Nos.803 of 1997 and 822 of 1997 were got decided by the parties with consensus arrived at between them. As a result whereof the petitioner agreed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the legal heirs of the deceased owner/allottee Muhammad Nawaz by or before 30th July, 2004 but instead of doing so an application was filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the High Court objecting on the consensus order. Learned High Court after having examined the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner and also taking into consideration previous proceedings concluding that application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is not competent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone carefully through the relevant provision of law. In our opinion, the High Court was right in observing that the previous proceedings arising out of the civil revision which were disposed of with the consensus between the parties, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons leave to appeal in both the petitions is declined and the petitions are dismissed. Leave to appeal declined.