MUHAMMAD ILLYAS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Regular Second Appeal concerning the validity of a consent decree. The core legal question was whether a consent decree passed against the petitioner was voidable on the grounds that he was a minor at the time of the suit's institution and was not represented by a guardian ad litem. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless because, even if the petitioner were a minor at the institution of the suit, he had attained the age of majority by the time the compromise was reached and the consent decree was passed. Furthermore, the petitioner was represented by his own counsel during the compromise proceedings, and he had signed the written statement in the original suit without raising the issue of minority. The Court affirmed that a consent decree is not invalid when the party, though potentially a minor at the suit's inception, is a major and legally represented at the time the decree is actually passed.
- Is a consent decree invalid if a party was a minor at the time of the suit's institution but had attained the age of majority when the decree was passed?
- Does the failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor defendant invalidate a consent decree if the defendant was a major at the time of the compromise?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22nd December, 1984 whereby Regular Second Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that Muhammad Siddique respondent No,1 was owner of agricultural land which he alienated by means of sale-deed in favour of the present petitioner and his brother Abbas Ali for a consideration of Rs,14,000. Subsequently Muhammad Siddique respondent on 1st May, 1970 instituted a suit for a declaration to the effect that he was owner in posession of the suit land and that the aforesaid sale-deed was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was contested only by the present petitioner and respondent No,6 Abbas Ali and not the other pro forma respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Later on the parties compromised the suit on the statements of Muhammad Siddique respondent and Abbas All respondent as well as learned counsel for the present petitioner. On the basis of the said compromise the trial Court passed consent decree subject to payment of a sum of Rs,14,000. Thereafter, the present petitioner and the aforesaid Abbas All respondent challenged the consent decree in appeal but the same was dismissed.
3. Subsequently their Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed by the High Court as stated above.
4. Hence the present petition.
5. ' The only point which was involved in this case is that the present petitioner on the day of the institution of the suit by Muhammad Siddique respondent was a minor and that he had been sued without the appointment of a guardian ad litem, consequently the consent degree by the trial Court was untenable under the law.
6. ' It was contended by learned counsel before us that the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner that he was a minor on the day of the institution, of the suit was wrongly rejected by the first appellate Court. But learned counsel before us concedes that the petitioner on the day when the suit was comrpomised i.e, 25th April, 1974 and the consent decree was passed was a major and was represented through his own counsel Malik Rashid Ahmad,Advocate. Therefore, it could not be said that the consent decree was passed in the suit without his knowledge or instructions. Factually the position is that the transaction of the suit land was made on 29th March, 1965 in favour of the petitioner and his brother Abbas Ali respondent. This document does not show that the petitioner was a minor at that time. Again when Muhammad Siddique respondent filed the suit against the petitioner and his brother, the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner in that suit was signed by him and it was not shown that he was a minor or that the suit was incompetent as against him without appointment of a guardian ad litem. These facts were deliberately concealed.
7. However, on the day the suit was decreed he had attained majority and was represented by his counsel. Therefore, it cannot be said that the consent decree was passed against a minor.
8. ' Since this is the position, in our considered view the High Court was correct in dismissing the Regular Second Appeal of the petitioner. It is, therefore, not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL KARIM vs ALAM SHER And Another 2003 YLR 487