ZARIF and others vs KHIZAR HAYAT
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a review petition challenging a compromise decree. The core legal question was whether a compromise entered into by a party's counsel and an attorney during civil revision proceedings could be challenged on the grounds of lack of authorization and absence of voluntary consent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners failed to establish valid grounds for interference. The Court emphasized that a statement made by a counsel on behalf of their clients to settle a dispute is binding, particularly when the judgment disposing of the revision petition explicitly records the settlement. The Court affirmed that factual allegations regarding the lack of authority or voluntary consent, when raised after a compromise decree has been passed and affirmed, do not constitute sufficient grounds for leave to appeal, especially where the counsel had acted within their professional capacity. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, upholding the finality of the compromise decree.
- Can a compromise decree be challenged on the grounds that the counsel lacked authority to settle the dispute?
- Is a statement made by a counsel in court to settle a dispute binding on the clients?
- Can factual allegations regarding the lack of voluntary consent to a compromise be raised to seek leave to appeal after a review petition has been dismissed?
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8- 6-1992, whereby Review Petition No, 17-C of 1992, directed against judgment dated 13-10-1991, passed in Civil Revision No, 927-D of 1991, was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. On 13-10-1991, Civil Revision Petition No, 927-D of 1991, inter se the parties herein came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The parties compromised the dispute and the learned Judge passed the order to the following effect: "After arguing the Civil Revision the parties and their counsel have agreed that the revision petition may be accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees may be set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner may be decreed against the defendants/respondents on the payment of Rs,85,000 more as part of the consideration money plus Rs,5,000 as costs, total being Rs,90,000 to be deposited by him for the opposite party in the trial Court within one month from the date of this order, whereafter, Malik Zarif, attorney of the defendants/respondents, shall get the sale-deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner within a further period of one month, failing which the trial Court shall get the document executed and registered through its Court official. All the expenses regarding its execution and registration shall be borne by the plaintiff/petitioner. Order accordingly."
' The aforesaid judgment was challenged through petition for leave to appeal No, 1064-L of 1991 which was dismissed on 10-3-1992 with observation: ' The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the compromise was not explained to the parties, that the petitioners had not voluntarily submitted to it, that the attorney was not authorised to enter into such a compromise and numerous other grounds. All such factual grounds cannot be made grounds for seeking leave to appeal where the order passed and impugned is one of compromise. If the petitioners want the compromise to be reopened, the appropriate course is for them to approach the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to correct its own errors on satisfactory grounds to be disclosed by the petitioners.
' No case for leave to appeal is made out which is hereby dismissed."
' Resultantly the petitioners filed Review Petition No, 17-C of 1992 in the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 8-6-1992. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that on 13-10-1991, only petitioner Muhammad Zarif, had appeared and he had no authority to enter into a compromise on behalf of the rest of the petitioners. Similarly the counsel representing the petitioners was not authorised to compromise with the respondent.
4. We have considered the contention raised by learned counsel for petitioners but find no substance in it. It is admitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that Mr. Abdul Hameed Niazi, Advocate, was their counsel in the revision petition before the High Court. He made a statement on their behalf to settle the dispute inter se the parties, which is apparent from the judgment disposing of the revision petition. The petitioners have failed to make out a case warranting interference in the impugned judgment passed by the Lahore High Court. No case for leave to appeal is made out which is accordingly dismissed.