FAZAL DIN vs WALI MUHAMMAD AND 5 Other
This matter originated from a property transfer dispute, which was initially decided by the Settlement Commissioner and subsequently brought before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. During the High Court proceedings, the parties reached a compromise, which a learned Single Judge accepted after recording their statements. The petitioner, who was a party to this compromise, later sought to reverse it through review and Letters Patent appeal, both of which were dismissed. The petitioner then sought Special Leave to Appeal from the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution to make orders based on a compromise. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner, having been a party to the compromise and having invoked the High Court's jurisdiction to accept it, was disqualified from raising the plea regarding the High Court's competence to pass orders on a compromise in writ jurisdiction.
- Can a party to a compromise, accepted by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, later challenge the High Court's jurisdiction to pass orders based on that compromise?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution to make orders based on a compromise reached by parties in writ proceedings?
- Article 98, Constitution
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-There were four contestants includ--ing the petitioner, for transfer of Property No. S-XX-5-S-5 Canal :Park, Lahore, which, on the Settlement side, was finally disposed of in revisional jurisdiction by the Settlement Com--missioner who divided it into four portions, respectively .Marked A, B, C and as marked out in the plan of the property. Portion .C was given to the petitioner. The petitioner and the other contestants took the matter to the High Court in writ jurisdiction, where a compromise was reached by the parties concerned which was accepted by a learned Single Judge after he had duly. Recorded the statements of the parties in acknowledge-- ment of the compromise. The learned Single Judge directed that the division of the disputed property should take place in accordance with the compromise. It appears that the petitioner later regretted this compromise and sought to have it reversed by moving a review petition and then a Letters Patent appeal, which have all been dismissed. He has now come up to this Court for Special Leave to Appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Art. 98 of the Consti--tution to make orders on compromise. We consider that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise this plea. He was a party to the compromise which was filed in the Court and he along with others invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to accept that compromise. In these circumstances, we consider that the petitioner is disqualified to raise the issue in this petition for special leave, that the High Court was not competent to pass the orders on a compromise in writ jurisdiction. We refuse to grant leave.
3. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- Muhammad Sachal Mahar vs P.O.Sindh & Ors 2025 SHC LAR 2242
- Nawabzada Saeed Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Aisha and others 2023 SHC 455
- SIRAJUD DIN BANJMIN (THROUGH His LEGAL HEIRS) AND Another vs Haji 1983 SCMR 836
- Mt. MAHAJANI vs Mat. MEHTABI AND 4 OTHERS 1978 PLD Lahore 22
- J. M. ZAIDI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS 1971 PLD Karachi 806