Mrs. IQBAL IDREES MALIK vs REHMAT ALI SHAH And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order passed by the Lahore High Court disposing of ongoing litigation in terms of a compromise endorsed by the petitioner. The core legal question is whether a compromise statement made by a party in court can be set aside on the alleged ground of duress and lack of legal representation. The Supreme Court held that the petition fails and must be dismissed, noting that the petitioner was an educated lady, accompanied by her brother, fully aware of the nature of the dispute, a beneficiary of the compromise, and had made the statement of her own accord without any sustainable proof of duress. The key principle laid down is that mere subsequent second thoughts by a party regarding a compromise duly and consciously endorsed in court do not constitute a valid ground for setting aside a judicial order based thereon.
- Can a compromise statement made in court by an educated party be set aside on the ground of duress without substantiating proof?
- Does the absence of legal representation at the time of endorsing a compromise in court invalidate the compromise?
- Can subsequent second thoughts by a party constitute a sufficient ground for upsetting an order passed on a compromise?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 3-3-1984 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the litigation raging between the parties was disposed of by him in terms of a compromise, which was duly endorsed before him.
2. Mr. Zaki-ud-Din P.I, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had endorsed the compromise under duress because her mother-in-law Mst. Amat-ur-Rasool was facing contempt proceedings and in order to help her mother-in-law an old and respectable lady--the petitioner who had just returned from abroad and was not represented by any counsel went before the Court and made a statement endorsing the compromise.
3. It is true that the petitioner was not represented by any counsel when she appeared in Court but her counsel, Mr. Zaki-ud-Din P.I, admitted before us that she was an educated lady and we note that her brother Mr. Amanat Ali was also present in Court alongwith her. She was undoubtedly aware of the nature of the dispute and had appeared before the Court of her own accord and made the statement before him stating that she was aware of the compromise fully endorsed it and was prepared to be bound by it.
4. The learned Judge in the High Court has further noted that she was a beneficiary in the aforesaid compromise, in that the part of the land which was initially intended to fall to the share of her mother---in-law would go to her.
5. In these circumstances, the learned Judge was fully justified in accepting and acting upon the statement of the petitioner and the plea A of duress cannot prevail. It appears that she has now some second thoughts about the correctness of the course followed by her. But this can hardly constitute a ground for upsetting an order passed by the learned Judge, which he could legitimately have made when it was actually passed.
6. No ground has, therefore, been made out for interference. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.