GHULAM FATIMA Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against an appellate order of the District Judge, Sialkot. The petitioners, who were subject to an ejectment order by the Rent Controller, had appealed to the District Judge. Their counsel subsequently informed the District Judge that a compromise had been reached, requesting the withdrawal of the appeal and a six-month period to vacate the premises, which the District Judge granted. The petitioners later challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the District Judge should have conducted an inquiry to verify the compromise before allowing the withdrawal, despite not disputing the authority of their counsel. The Supreme Court held that the counsel's withdrawal of the appeal was not unauthorized and dismissed the petition. The Court affirmed that a counsel's statement regarding a compromise is binding on the client, and the court is not required to conduct an independent inquiry into the validity of the compromise when presented by authorized legal counsel.
- Is a compromise entered into by a counsel on behalf of their client binding on the client?
- Is a court required to hold an independent inquiry into a compromise presented by a counsel before allowing the withdrawal of an appeal?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 23‑11‑1987 whereby the constitutional petition of the petitioners and two others from the order dated 11‑5‑1985 of the District Judge, Sialkot, was dismissed.
2. From an order of ejectment passed against them by the Rent Controller, on the application of respondent No.1 the petitioners and two others filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sialkot. On 11‑5‑1985, their counsel Mr. Muhammad Akram, .Advocate, made a statement before the learned Judge that the parties had entered into a compromise and in accordance thereof the appeal should be allowed to be withdrawn and they be given a period of 6 months to vacate the property in dispute. The learned District Judge disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise. On 11‑7‑1985, the petitioners alongwith two others, namely, Muhammad Khalid and Ahmad Hussain, filed a constitutional petition in the High Court to challenge the order of the learned District Judge. Although they did not dispute in the petition that they had engaged Mr. Muhammad Akram, Advocate, as their counsel, their grievance was that before allowing the appeal to be withdrawn, the learned District Judge should have held an inquiry and called them to find out whether a compromise had in fact taken place. A learned Single Judge in the. High Court found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed it. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioners that the withdrawal of the appeal by Mr. Muhammad Akram, was unauthorised. We would accordingly dismiss this petition. However, the petitioners are allowed a period of two months to vacate the property in question on the understanding that they would voluntarily surrender its possession in favour of respondent No.1 immediately on the expiry of this period without involving the latter in any further proceedings in respect of the house and further that they shall pay the rent of the house before the 15th of each succeeding month.
M.I./G‑73/S Petition dismissed.