THE COLLECTOR, SHEIKHUPURA AND 2 Others Versus Mst. ZUBAIDA AND 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership in Sheikhupura, which was initially the subject of a writ petition between private parties. During the writ proceedings, the petitioners (the Collector and others) were impleaded as respondents. The writ petition was disposed of based on a compromise between the private parties, to which the petitioners' counsel consented by stating 'no objection.' The petitioners subsequently challenged this order, alleging that their counsel lacked the authority to consent to the compromise on their behalf. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could challenge the counsel's authority before the Supreme Court without first seeking a determination of that factual issue in the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the question of whether counsel possessed the requisite authority is a question of fact that must be determined by the High Court. In the absence of such a determination, the Court established the principle that it is justified in presuming that counsel had the requisite authority to make statements on behalf of their clients.
- Is the question of whether a counsel had the authority to consent to a compromise on behalf of a client a question of fact?
- Can a party challenge the authority of their counsel to make a statement in court for the first time in the Supreme Court without seeking a determination in the High Court?
- Is there a presumption that a counsel appearing in court has the requisite authority to make statements on behalf of their clients?
ORDER
1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition are that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 6, 7, 14/1, 14/2, 16, 17, 18, 19 to 25 measuring 13 acres 6 kanals 11 marlas of Square No. 33 in Chak No. 25/RB, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, was subject-matter of dispute between the respondents, Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Sultan, the respondent 1 and in a writ petition filed by Mst. Zubaida Bibi against Sultan in which petition, the petitioners herein were arraigned as respondents. This petition was compromised between Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Sultan the effect of which was that 1/3rd of the said land was given to Muhammad Unsar, son of Mst. Zubaida Bibi and 2/3rd was retained by respondent Sultan and the parties were to be put in possession accordingly by drawing lots in the presence of respectables of the village. The writ petition was disposed of on a statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein that the petitioners bad no objection.
2. The petitioners now allege that the no objection given on their behalf was unauthorised inasmuch as the learned counsel appearing for them had no authority to make any statement and have the writ petition disposed o in term of compromise arrived at between Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Sultan.
3. Now it is obvious that whether or not the counsel appearing for the petitioner had or had not the authority from the petitioners to state no objection o their behalf is a question of fact and the remedy therefore, for the petitioners was to move the High Court for determination of this question, and in its absence we will be justified in presuming that the counsel had the requisite authority to make the statement on behalf of the petitioners.
4. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.