Sufi HASSAN MUHAMMAD and others vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD and others
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal, which was subsequently converted into an appeal. The dispute concerned the possession and ownership of a property involving multiple petitioners and respondents. Following several adjournments granted to facilitate an out-of-court settlement, the parties reached a mutual adjustment. The core legal question was whether the court could dispose of the matter based on the compromise reached between the parties. The Supreme Court accepted the settlement terms, whereby petitioners 1 to 9 were granted ownership of a specific 18-marla portion of the property (comprising 9 marlas of built-up area and 9 marlas of open compound) upon payment of Rs. 50,000 to respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners agreed to surrender the remaining property to the respondents. The court held that the petition be converted into an appeal and disposed of in accordance with these agreed terms, stipulating a two-month deadline for the transfer of possession and payment, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The petition regarding appellants 10 to 12 was dismissed as not pressed.
- Can the Supreme Court dispose of a petition by converting it into an appeal based on a mutual settlement reached between the parties?
- Is a court order disposing of a matter based on a compromise enforceable with a specific deadline for compliance?
ORDER
' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---This case has been adjourned on several occasions on the request of the parties to enable them to settle this dispute through mutual adjustment. This has now been made, as is evident from the statement of the parties.
2. Sh. Abdul Aziz, learned counsel of the petitioners states that he would be satisfied if petitioners Nos. 1 to 9 are given the built-up portion in their possession measuring 9 Marlas alongwith the open compound (also measuring 9 Marlas adjacent to it) for which portion they will pay a sum of Rs,50,000 but that they will give up the remaining part of the property and hand it over to respondents 2 and 3. So far as petitioners 10 to 12 are concerned they agree not to press their petition, which may be dismissed accordingly.
3. Mian Nisar Ahmad states that he has consulted respondent No, 2 Saleh Muhammad and his son Mr. Maqsood Ahmad, Advocate, who accept this offer, provided the petitioners 1 to 9 do hand over vacant possession of those portions of the property in their occupation (except the 18 Marlas: 9 Marlas on which construction exists and 9 Marlas open space attached thereto for which they are to pay a sum of Rs,50,000), within two months from today. Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners agrees.
4. The petition is converted into an appeal and is disposed of in terms that appellants 1 to 9 will be transferred 9 Marlas (built up area) without any charge and the remaining 9 Marlas on payment of Rs,50,000 to respondents 2 and 3. Possession of the remaining area occupied by them will be transferred to respondents 2 and 3. Both the payment and handing over of possession shall be done within two months from today, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. The appeal on behalf of appellants 10 to 12 stands dismissed, as not pressed.
' Parties will bear their own costs.