Maulvi MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the High Court, which had restored an appellate order based on a compromise between the parties. The petitioner and respondent had filed rival suits claiming title to the property in dispute, which were initially decided by the civil court. During the appellate stage, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute through an oath on the Holy Quran by the respondent. Pursuant to the oath, the appeals were disposed of in favor of the respondent. Although the Additional District Judge subsequently allowed a review petition and restored the appeals for a decision on merits, the High Court set aside the review order and restored the consent-based appellate order. The core legal question concerned the propriety of interfering with a judgment and decree rendered upon the voluntary consent and undertaking of the parties. The Supreme Court held that where parties have settled the matter through a just arrangement by taking the agreed oath and the statement has been acted upon, there is no justification to release them from their undertaking or to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction in granting leave to appeal. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a party can be permitted to resile from a compromise or settlement reached through an oath on the Holy Quran after it has been acted upon?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction with a consent-based appellate order reflecting a just arrangement between the parties?
- Order XLI Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLVII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLVII Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of this case and it will be sufficient for our purposes to mention that the petitioner as well as the respondent each filed a suit claiming title over the property in dispute which was described more fully in their respective plaint. The suits were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Civil judge dated 11-3-1971, whereby the suit of the petitioner was decreed whereas the suit of the respondent herein was dismissed.
2. The respondent filed two appeals-(one in each case)-which were disposed of in terms of a statement of the parties wherein they agreed to get the matter settled in favour of Muhammad Ismail, respondent, if he took oath on the Holy Quran that he had not sold the property in dispute to the present petitioner Muhammad Ismail ,respondent took the requisite oath and accordingly his suit was decreed and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed and the two appeals were accordingly disposed of on 2-10-1972. The present petitioner then filed a review which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge on 10-10-1974. And the main appeals were restored for decision on merits.
3. Muhammad Ismail, respondent filed an appeal being F. A. O. 188/74 which was accepted by the High Court, vide its order dated 2-3-1981 whereby the order of the learned Additional District Judge on 10-10-1974 was set aside and his earlier order dated 2-10-1972 was restored.
4. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the last mentioned order to this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the appeal of Muhammad Ismail respondent was not maintainable under Order XLI, rule 7; C. P. C. Because the order of the learned Additional District Judge date 10-10-1974 did not suffer from violation of rule 2 or rule 4 of Order XLVII, We do not want to go into this point and leave it open for examination some more appropriate case because in our opinion the order dated 2-10-1974 was based on the consent of both the parties in accordance with which the respondent had duly taken the oath and in this context, we do not feelany jurisdiction to take exception to the same especially when the aforesaid statement had duly been acted upon. For this reason, we do not feel that this is a fit case for examination by this Court inasmuch as the parties bat: themselves settled the matter by a just arrangement and there is no justification to realise them from their aforesaid undertaking, in our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter of granting leave to appeal.
6. The petition for the reasons aforesaid is dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases
- Sajid Mehmood vs Mst. Shazia Azad and others 2022 SCP 362
- Sajid Mehmood vs Mst. Shazia Azad and others 2023 SCMR 153
- Choudhry KHALID SAEED vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2009 CLC 235
- Maulana MUHAMMAD IDREES vs FAZAL SAID KHATTAK and others 2009 CLC 241
- GHULAM QADIR vs MUHAMMAD YASEEN 1999 MLD 2852
- MAHMOOD ALI BUTT Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 1997 PLD 823
- BHORE KHAN vs NOOR DIN 1993 PLD Peshawar 72