MUHAMMAD SHUJAUDDIN Versus MUHAMMAD HAROON

In pursuance of order dated 16‑10‑1988, defendants Nos.l to 4 were directed to produce in the Court the original power of attorney. Today, the learned counsel for the defendants Nos.l to 4 has produced original power of attorney, which prima facie appears to be duly attested by a Notary Public in Karachi. The original power of attorney is returned to the defendants' Advocate and a photostat copy thereof is placed on record.

2. The parties herein have prayed vide CMA No.6709/1988 that a compromise decree under Order XXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. be passed on the terms and conditions contained therein. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants identify the signatures cf plaintiffs and defendants. In view of proper execution of this application by the parties as well as by the learned counsel for the parties, I order that a compromise decree on the terms and conditions contained in the application under Order XXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. (CMA No.6709/1988) passed. CMA No. 7190/1988: This is an application filed by Messrs Haji Abdul Karim and As praying that they may be joined as co defendants in the suit. This application was filed in the office on 27‑10‑1988 and was placed in the Court for orders.

3. I have looked into the contents of the affidavit and the application, wherein among others, it is stated that the parties in this suit are in collusion with each other and have fraudulently entered into the compromise between them. According to them, one Haji Karim is not a duly constituted attorney of defendants Nos.l, 2 and 3. The object of entering into this compromise agreement is to prejudice the lawful rights of the intervenors as purchasers of the building and, therefore, it is a nullity in law.

4. Mr. K.B. Bhutto, learned counsel for the intervenors is not able to satisfy me how at this stage he can prevent the parties from entering into a compromise and obtain a compromise decree as contemplated under Order XXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. It will not be out of place to mention here that similar attempts had been made by the intervenors herein in CMA No.6736/1988 in Suit No.32/1984. In that suit as well the intervenors made a request that they may be made a party to the suit. The oral request of the intervenors through their Advocate Mr. K.B. Bhutto was not considered by my learned brother Wajihuddin Ahmad, J. , according to whom, if the conduct of the parties was fraudulent or collusive the intervenors had the liberty to take proper proceedings under section 12,. C.P.C. or any other proceedings by way of filing a fresh suit. Photo stat copy of order filed. I am also of this view that at this stage the intervenors cannot` prevent the parties from entering into a compromise and obtain a compromise decree. They shall, however, be at liberty to take any proceedings which may be advised.

5. Suit No.199/1984 is decreed in terms of the compromise application and the application of the intervenors is dismissed.

M.Z.S./M‑631/K Order accordingly.