ABDUL KHALID and others vs PROVINCE OF SINDH and others
The petitioners challenged an order dated 11-11-2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court, which was recorded as being passed by the consent of the parties. The core legal question was whether an appeal is competent against a consent order, and whether the Supreme Court could entertain a challenge to the High Court's record of consent when the petitioners disputed that consent was given. The Supreme Court held that an appeal against a consent order is not competent. Regarding the dispute over whether consent was actually provided, the Court refused to go behind the High Court's record, noting that two honourable Judges of the High Court had explicitly recorded that consent was given by or on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the Court clarified that this dismissal did not preclude the petitioners from moving an appropriate application before the High Court for relief if they were so advised.
- Is an appeal competent against an order passed by the consent of the parties?
- Can the Supreme Court entertain a challenge to a High Court order based on a dispute regarding whether consent was actually given, when the High Court record explicitly states consent was provided?
ORDER
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- The petitioners impugn the order, dated 11-11-2009 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court. It is stated in the said order that the same has been passed by consent of the parties. If this is indeed so, then an appeal would not be competent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, stated that the petitioners or their learned counsel in the High Court had not consented to the said order. He also referred to an affidavit of the said counsel. We are afraid, this contention cannot be accepted considering that two honourable Judges of the High Court have noted that consent was given by or on behalf of the petitioners.
2. In the foregoing circumstances, this petition is dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioners from moving an appropriate application before the High Court, if so advised.