Malik MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs SALIM AKHTAR and 4 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a compromise order passed by the High Court in a second appeal under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerned whether a compromise order passed by the High Court on the statement of counsel could be challenged directly before the Supreme Court on the ground that the counsel lacked instructions. The Supreme Court refused to enter into the factual controversy regarding the instructions given to counsel, holding that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the impugned order, the appropriate remedy was to approach the High Court which passed the order. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, establishing the principle that allegations regarding unauthorized compromise orders passed by counsel should appropriately be raised first before the same court that recorded the order.
- Can a petitioner challenge a compromise order passed by the High Court directly before the Supreme Court on the ground of lack of counsel's instructions?
- What is the appropriate forum for a party aggrieved by a consent or compromise order alleging lack of instruction to counsel?
- Section 15(6), Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---During the hearing of S.A.O. No, 20 of , 1992, filed by respondents/landlords under section 15(6) of the Punjab. Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the order of Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 2-11-1992 the learned High Court recorded the following compromising order at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties:
(a) That the second appeal shall be accepted main judgment shall be set aside and the application seeking ejectment of the respondent filed by the appellants shall be accepted and an order of ejectment shall be passed against the respondent.
(b) That the respondent shall be given a period of one year w,e,f. Today on expiry of which period the respondent shall immediately handover vacant possession of the shops in question to the appellants/landlords without obliging them to file execution proceedings.
(c) That the respondent shall to on paying agreed rent as per terms already settled between the parties and shall not damage transfer possession of the shops in question during the interregnum.
(d) That in case the respondent fails to vacate the shops in question on or before the stipulated period of time, the landlords shall be at liberty to get possession of the shops in question in execution of the ejectment order passed by this Court today at the cost and risk of respondent.
2. ' In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the parties the appeal was accepted and disposed of in terms agreed upon vide order dated 14-2-1994.
3. Leave is prayed for against the said compromise order on the allegation that petitioner did not give any instruction to his counsel to get the case disposed of in terms of the alleged agreement as noted in the impugned judgment. Petitioner further denied that he has been consulted by his learned counsel and that on his instructions the compromise order was passed and the appeal disposed of in terms thereof.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel we are not inclined to enter into the factual controversy raised before us on the face of elaborate clear cut order of the learned. High Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the order he is to approach the learned High Court which passed the impugned order, if so advised. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the .