RAHIM BAKHSH vs GHULAM NABI
This matter arises from a pre-emption dispute involving a long history of litigation. Following the dismissal of a civil appeal by the Supreme Court for non-prosecution, the parties sought to implement a compromise agreement previously presented to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the parties to approach the court whose decree required amendment to give effect to the compromise. The respondent subsequently sought relief in the High Court, which allowed the revision and directed that the compromise be considered within the file of the original Regular Second Appeal. The petitioner challenged this, arguing the record could not be requisitioned and the compromise was not admitted. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having been represented by counsel when the compromise was presented and having failed to challenge its validity under the Specific Relief Act, could not now resile from the agreement. The Court affirmed that the High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction, could validly requisition the record to implement the compromise in accordance with the Supreme Court's prior direction. The petition was dismissed.
- Can a party resile from a compromise agreement after failing to challenge its validity under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Does the High Court have the authority to requisition the record of a disposed Regular Second Appeal to give effect to a compromise agreement?
- Can a court direct parties to approach the court of original decree to implement a compromise after an appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Order XXX Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Section 39, Specific Relief Act 1877
ORDER
' MIAN SAQIB NISAR J.---This case has cheered history, however the facts have been clearly provided in the impugned judgment of the High Court and those need no reiteration, except for comprehending the issue it is briefly mentioned that the matter has arisen out of a pre-emption dispute inter se the parties. In the earlier round of litigation, availing his last remedy, the respondent filed Civil Appeal No,191 of 1985 before this Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution. An application for restoration thereof was filed, but it could not succeed and was dismissed on 12-4- 1992. The same day, a miscellaneous application came up before this Court for the hearing in which, Mr. Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate was marked present for the petitioner while Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record represented the respondent. The said application was filed under Order XXX, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules to the effect that the parties have entered into a compromise and, therefore, Civil Appeal. No,191 of 1985 should be disposed of in terms thereof. This Court, however, in its order dated. 12-4-1992 observed that "Since at present there is no appeal pending before us, the prayer made in this application cannot be granted. The parties may, if so advised, approach the Court whose decree is desired to be amended in terms of the compromise to allow the same and we consider that if the said prayer advances the interest of justice it can be granted by the said Court". Thereafter, the respondent filed the compromise application before the trial, court, which was dismissed on the ground that it should have been before the High Court. The respondent then instituted a suit for the specific performance of the aforesaid compromise, but failed. Anyhow, the matter ultimately came up before the High Court in Civil Revision No,128-D of 2000 and the learned Judge in Chamber after having narrated the entire history has concluded that the respondent could have filed the said compromise in RSA. No, 152 of 1976 out of which Civil Appeal No,191 of 1985 had arisen, as this was the direction of the apex Court, therefore, in the interest of justice the following order was passed by the High Court:- "This civil revision accordingly is allowed inasmuch as the compromise presented before the Hon' ble Supreme Court is to be considered in the file of RSA. No,152 of 1976. The file is available and is accordingly taken up."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that RSA.No,152 of 1976 was finally disposed of and in Civil Revision No,128-D of 2000 said record could neither be requisitioned/summoned by the Court nor the compromise could be given effect in that RSA; that the compromise at no stage was admitted by the petitioner and thus, until and unless the validity thereof was proved by the respondent it had no sanctity and effecting law.
3. Heard. As far as the question that the agreement was not executed the plea is belied by the order of this Court dated 12-4-1992 passed in C.M.A. No,225-L of 1991, as the agreement/compromise, which was in writing, was brought on the record along with the application. Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate was marked present on behalf of the petitioner who never objected or questioned the execution or the validity of the said agreement. Even otherwise, it was conspicuously mentioned before this Court that the parties have reached an agreement and if the same is granted the litigation between them would come to an end, however, it is this Court which in a peculiar situation advised the parties to approach the court whose decree was desired to be amended/ modified. The petitioner was well aware of the said agreement/ compromise, but he had never approached any Court for seeking cancellation of this document under the provisions of section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, on any ground whatsoever. But thereafter, residing from the agreement/compromise by the petitioner is a clear case of oblique motive and an afterthought, with an object to cause prejudice to the respondent, who has been running throughout from pillar to post to seek the fruits thereof.
4. As regards the question that the record of RSA, No,152 of 1976 could not be requisitioned by the learned High Court, suffice it to say that even in the order of this Court dated 12-4-1992 it has been clearly mentioned that the parties should approach the court whose decree is desired to be amended in terms of the agreement. Obviously it was the High Court which had passed the decree in the noted RSA, thus when in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court the matter had come before it in order to give effect to the compromise, the High Court could validly seek and requisition the record of the RSA and as per direction of the apex Court could give effect therein. We are not satisfied B and convinced if any injustice has been caused to the petitioner or the impugned judgment suffers from any legal or factual infirmity calling for interference.
5. Resultantly, we find no merits in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.