SALAMAT ALI vs TARIQ & COMPANY
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a trial court decree. The trial court had originally decreed the respondent's suit due to the petitioner's failure to produce evidence, applying Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Subsequently, the parties entered into a compromise during the appellate stage, wherein the petitioner agreed to deposit the decretal amount and costs in exchange for the case being remanded for the presentation of his evidence. Upon the petitioner's failure to fulfill the deposit condition, he sought to challenge the compromise, alleging his counsel lacked authority to enter into it. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had adequately addressed this factual contention and that no error was present in the lower court's approach. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that a party cannot avoid a compromise agreement by belatedly questioning their counsel's authority when the factual basis for such a claim is unsubstantiated.
- Can a party challenge a compromise agreement on the grounds of lack of counsel authority after failing to fulfill the agreed conditions?
- Does the failure to produce evidence at the trial stage justify the application of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a High Court's finding on the factual authority of counsel to enter into a compromise subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a suit for recovery of money, against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court.
2. ' The trial Court decreed the respondent's suit on failure of the petitioner to produce evidence.
3. Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Was applied against him. On petitioner's appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. The petitioner agreed to deposit the decretal amount and the costs of the suit; on the performance of which condition, the respondent agreed "petitioner's appeal might be accepted" and case remanded to the trial Court for receiving petitioner's evidence. The petitioner failed to satisfy the terms of the compromise with regard to the deposit. Instead he filed a petition for review of the appellate order of remand, which was dismissed. His civil revision also having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for obvious reasons on account of the impediment of the compromise, could not raise any arguments so far as the merits of the case are concerned. He, however, contended that the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in support of the appeal, had no authority to enter into the compromise nor were there any such instructions to the counsel.
5. ' The learned Judge in the High Court adequately dealt with this factual contention raised from the petitioner's side. No error has been pointed out in the approach followed by the High Court.
6. ' Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.