WALI MUHAMMAD vs KHUSHDIL AND Other
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court in a civil revision petition. The core legal question was whether a party, having consented to a settlement through their counsel before the High Court, could subsequently challenge the resulting decree in the Supreme Court. The High Court had recorded that the petitioner, through counsel, agreed to accept a specific sum of Rs. 60,000 as a refund of the sale price paid to the vendor, and the respondents had agreed to pay this amount, leading to a consent decree. The Supreme Court held that in light of the fact that the impugned order was passed with the express consent of the parties' counsel, there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle affirmed is that a party is bound by a consent decree entered into by their counsel, and such a decree cannot be challenged on appeal.
- Can a party challenge a decree in the Supreme Court that was passed by the High Court with the consent of their counsel?
- Is a consent decree binding upon the parties who agreed to it through their legal representatives?
ORDER
1. SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J.-The impugned order of the High Court shows that Civil Revision Petition No. 201 of 1979 filed by the present petitioner Wali Muhammad against the present respondents Khushdil etc. Was decided before the High Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned counsel for Wali Muhammad present petitioner had agreed to get Rs.
2. 60,000 which he had paid to the vendor by way of sale price of the suit land. The learned counsel for the present respondents bad agreed to pay that amount and a decree was passed accordingly.
3. In these circumstances, the present petition of Wali, Muhammad for special leave to appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice S. Usman Ali Shah, as he then was, in Civil Revision Petition No. 201 of 1979 dated 2-12-1981 cannot be allowed. This petition is, therefore, dismissed without any further action.