MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Others vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION
This matter originated from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had previously sought the modification of an earlier order dated 1-2-1986, which had disposed of their Revision Petition No. 630-R of 1974. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an order passed by the High Court with the express consent of the petitioners could be subsequently modified or challenged. The Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the petition for leave to appeal. The ratio of the decision is that a judicial order passed with the consent of the parties cannot be challenged or modified at the behest of those same parties, as the consent serves as a binding agreement to the disposition of the matter. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the original order maintained by the High Court remained valid and binding upon the petitioners.
- Can a party challenge or seek modification of a High Court order that was passed with their express consent?
- Does a consent order preclude a party from later filing a miscellaneous application for its modification?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---With the consent of the petitioners their Revision Petition No.630-R of 1974 was disposed of on 1-2-1986. Petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous No.1305 of 1987 for modification of the order. The application was dismissed by the learned Judge on 23-6-1987. The petitioners seek leave to appeal.
2. There is no merit in this petition as the original order maintained was passed by the learned Judge of the High Court with the consent of the petitioners. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.