GHULAM JAFFAR and others vs CANAL MAGISTRATE, (II-CLASS) and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment dated 23-2-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, wherein the petitioners contended that their writ petition was disposed of based on a statement made by another counsel without their advocate being present or authorized. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed from the impugned judgment that the petitioners' counsel was indeed present in Court and had accepted the proposal made by the respondents. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that three potential remedies were available to the petitioners: filing a suit for damages against the counsel, moving an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or filing a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- What remedies are available to a party whose counsel allegedly consented to a judgment without proper instructions or authority?
- Can a review petition be filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in circumstances where a counsel accepts a proposal in court?
- Is an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure an appropriate remedy to challenge a judgment rendered on a purported consent?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' The sole ground taken in this petition for leave to appeal against judgment dated 23-2-2000 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petition No,218 of 1986, is that the learned counsel for the petitioners was on leave and the learned Judge as well as the learned counsel for the other writ petitioners were informed of his absence but in spite of that the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition of the petitioners presuming that the other learned counsel appearing in the connected causes had the authority to make a statement on behalf of the petitioners as well.
2. A perusal of the impugned judgment clearly shows that Mr. Moulvi Sultan Alam, Advocate for the petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.218 of 1986 and 6497 of 1995) was present in the Court and that he had accepted the proposal made by the respondents.
3. Be that as it may, there are three courses open to the petitioners to be resorted to. First, they may file a suit for damages against the learned counsel who accepted the proposal of the respondents, secondly, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And thirdly a review petition under Order XLVI1, rule 1, C.P.C.
4. With the above observations the petition is dismissed and leave declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.