MAQBOOL AHMAD AND Others vs Mst. HANIFA BIBI AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application filed by the petitioners seeking to avoid a compromise decree previously passed in a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could repudiate a compromise agreement, which had been accepted by their counsel and their brother in open court, on the grounds that they were personally absent and had not authorized the compromise. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners failed to establish any valid basis to challenge the compromise. The Court observed that the petitioners' counsel had approved the settlement, and the compromise was dictated in open court, leaving no ambiguity requiring clarification. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a party is bound by a compromise entered into by their counsel in open court, especially when the record indicates the settlement was accepted and no credible evidence exists to suggest the counsel lacked authority or that the compromise was invalid.
- Can a party avoid a compromise decree on the ground that they were not personally present when it was entered into?
- Is a compromise entered into by a counsel in open court binding on the parties?
- Does a court have grounds to set aside a compromise order when the counsel for the parties has approved it?
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioners who are brothers inter se, seek leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25-3-79 whereby their application ostensibly seeking clarification but in reality seeking avoidance of compromise given effect to by the Court was dismissed.
2. The two petitioners alongwith their third brother Habib Ahmed had protracted litigation with respondent No. 1 (Mst. Hanifan Bibi). It appears that a compromise was arrived at in the presence of the counsel parties and among others, of Habib Ahmed. In terms thereof order was passed by the Court disposing of the constitutional petition pending in the High Court. The petitioners wanted to avoid the compromise order on the ground that they were not present, that they had not given instructions nor consented to such a compromise and their counsel who approved it was not authorized by them to do so. The learned Judge in the High Court held that the compromise was arrived at by the applicants' brother and their counsel and the same was dictated in their presence in open Court which they accepted. There was no ambiguity or doubt which may require clarification and the application was dismissed.
3. The petitioners want to avoid the compromise. We do not find on the facts contained in the various decisions concerning the dispute between the parties any scope whereby the petitioners may avoid the compromise. Their counsel had approved of it. He has not challenged it. There is otherwise also no ground appearing which may justify interference with it. There is no merit in the petition and the leave to appeal is refused.
4. M. Z. M.