MUSHTAQ And Others vs RABIAN BIBI And Other
The petitioners, defendants in a partition suit, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their regular second appeal. The dispute arose from a compromise decree in the first appellate court, where the petitioners were granted the right to acquire the plaintiff-respondent's one-sixth share of a property upon payment of twenty-two thousand rupees by a specified date. Upon failing to make the payment by the deadline, the petitioners applied for an extension, which the plaintiff-respondent refused. The first appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether a court has the authority to unilaterally extend a time limit established by a compromise agreement between parties. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that where parties agree to a specific timeframe for the performance of a duty within a compromise, that timeframe cannot be altered or extended without the mutual consent of the parties involved. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the lower courts correctly applied the law.
- Can a court unilaterally extend a time limit for performance established by a compromise agreement between parties?
- Is the consent of all parties required to alter a timeframe set in a compromise decree?
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners, who were defendants in a partition suit seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18-12-1979 whereby their regular second appeal was dismissed with costs.
2. The plaintiff-respondent was held entitled to one-sixth share in the house located over eight Marlas. She was given by partition a portion measuring to Marlas on payment of rupees ten thousand. The petitioners and other defendants appealed and in appeal they compromised whereby on payment of rupees twenty-to thousand in Court on 14-3-1978 to plaintiff-respondent they were to become owners of her share failing which their appeal was to stand dismissed. On 15- 2-1978 the petitioners applied for extension of the. The first appellate Court enquired of the plaintiff respondent and on her refusal to agree to extension dismissed the appeal. Their second appeal also failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application was made in the, that the Court could extend the the and that by not passing an appropriate order well in the their case was seriously prejudiced.
4. The law laid down by this Court in Syed Ahmad Shah and to others v Muhammad Yar and six others 1974 SCMR 191 is that where the parties agree to a the for the performance of a duty then it is only by the agreement of parties and not otherwise that it can be extended or altered. The first appellate Court in doing what it did and the High Court in dismissing the appeal observed the law laid down by this Court and no grievance can be made of it. Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Col. JAVED IQBAL LODHI Versus Lt.-Col. NADEEM AHMAR 2007 CLC 831