ALI AKSAR And Others vs BAGH ALI And Other
The petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking clarification of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had recorded a compromise between the parties in a Regular Second Appeal. The petitioners contended that a specific sentence added by the High Court judge in the judgment, intended to clarify the compromise, actually altered the fundamental basis of the agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court held that it could not review a judgment passed by a High Court judge that was based on the parties' own agreement and recorded in their presence with explanatory remarks. The Court determined that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners, if they felt aggrieved by the clarification or the recording of the compromise, was to approach the same High Court judge who passed the impugned order to seek necessary clarification. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the liberty reserved for the parties to move the original High Court judge for any required clarification of the impugned judgment.
- Can the Supreme Court review a High Court judgment based on a compromise between parties?
- What is the appropriate forum for seeking clarification of a judgment recording a compromise?
- Does a clarification added by a judge to a compromise order constitute an alteration of the agreement?
ORDER
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---Through the present petition Ali Aksar and others, petitioners basically seek clarification of the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 27-2-.1989 passed in R.S.A. No.682 of 1968.
2. It appears that the parties having compromised the matter, the learned Single Judge recorded the same in his short judgment on 27-2-1989, also adding a clarification in the penultimate sentence for the purposes of being more explicit. It is now submitted that the said sentence has the effect of changing the very basis of the agreement between the parties and that the same should not have been recorded. It is not possible for this Court to review the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which was based on the agreement of the parties and which he recorded in their presence, with the necessary explanation to make the matter more explicit. 1f the petitioners have any grievance, they can move the learned Single Judge, for necessary clarification. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. However, nothing herein contained shah bar either party seeking clarification of the impugned judgment from the learned Judge who passed the impugned judgment.