2014 S C M R 669


2014 S C M R 669

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ

KHADIM HUSSAIN---Appellant

Versus

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No.891 of 2007, decided on 23rd January, 2014.

            (On appeal from the judgment dated 15-4-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.2301 of 1986.)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----Ss. 115 & 12(2)---Civil revision---Compromise between parties---Consent decree---Dismissal of civil revision on merits despite such consent decree---Legality---Appellant had filed civil revision before the High Court during pendency of which both parties compromised and a consent decree was passed--- Subsequent to the consent decree, respondent filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., challenging the consent decree/compromise, whereafter High Court decided the civil revision on merits---Validity---Application of respondent under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not decided---Without the compromise judgment and decree being set aside under S. 12(2), C.P.C., no order could be passed on merits---Impugned judgment of High Court whereby it decided the civil revision on merits was set aside in circumstances and Supreme Court directed that application filed by respondent under S. 12(2), C.P.C., shall remain pending with the High Court and shall be decided at the earliest---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

            Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.

            Ex parte for Respondents Nos.1, 5 and 6.

            Tariq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), 4 and 7 to 9.

            Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, AAG, Punjab along with Asim, Naib Tehsildar, Pasroor and M. Ayub, Patwari on Court's Notice.

            Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2014.

ORDER

            SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---Malik Saeed Hassan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the appellant says that the civil revision filed by the appellant before the learned High Court was  compromised  between  the parties  as  per  order  dated 9-4-2001, but admittedly thereafter the impugned judgment was also passed dated 15-4-2002, dismissing the civil revision on merits in which event the same cannot be sustained.

2.         To this submission Mr. Tariq Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for respondents says that after the matter had been compromised on 9-4-2001 an application under section 12(2), C.P.C.  had  been  moved  by  the  respondents  and  per  order  dated 11-12-2001, the compromise order of 9-4-2001 was suspended.

3.         We have heard both the learned ASCs for the parties and have also perused the record with their assistance.

4.         It is quite apparent that there is no order deciding the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed by the respondents in which event without the compromise judgment and decree being set aside under section 12(2), C.P.C., no order could be passed on merits. Consequently,  we  allow  this  appeal. The impugned judgment dated 15-4-2002 is set aside. The application filed by the respondents under section 12(2), C.P.C., challenging the consent decree/compromise etc. shall remain pending with the learned High Court and shall be decided at the earliest.

5.         The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

MWA/K-1/SC                                                                                     Order accordingly.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358 Present: Mian Saqib Nisar, Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Tariq Parvez, JJ Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another---Appellants/Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another---Respondents Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2015, and Civil Petition No.1428-L of 2015.           (Against the order dated 11-6-2015 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.M. Nos. 385, 388/2009 and 2051 of 2015) (a) Words and phrases --- ----"Merge" and "merger"---Definitions.             Chambers English Dictionary 7th Edn.; Oxford English Dictionary (1933); Corpus Juris Secoundum (1936) and The Constitution of India by Prof. S.R.Bhansali ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C, filing of---Forum---"Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order"---Principles---For all legal purposes, it was the final decree/order of the last Court in ...
Read more

P L D 2009 Lahore 362

P L D 2009 Lahore 362 Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Shamim and M.A. Zafar, JJ GHULAM MURTAZA and another---Appellants Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No.284-J of 2008, decided on 27th March, 2009. (a) Administration of justice--- ----Principles---Quintessence of the Civilization's evolution and growth in the legal field is a progression from dispensation of justice according to the principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" to "justice according to law"---Rationale or raison d'etre for this momentum, quite easy to discern and comprehend, is that justice ought not to be administered according to whims, caprice or subjective standards of an individual judge but it should be dispensed according to some codified or stipulated standards so as to render the outcome consistent and reasonably predictable---Predictability of judicial response to an action or inaction of a person is important because, by and large, people livi...
Read more

2010 SCMR 1181, Supreme Court Allowed Superdari

2010 SCMR 1181 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ ALLAH DITTA----Petitioner Versus THE STATE----Respondent Criminal Petition No.461 of 2009, decided on 12th February, 2010. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore dated 3-6-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2009). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 74, Proviso---`Any private individual'---Meaning and scope ---Phrase "any private individual" is to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific words, "accused, or his associate or relative' ---By application of the rule the "private individual" mentioned in the proviso refers to such an `individual who has some nexus with the offender or the offence-I-Innocent owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime having no nexus whatsoever, either with the accused or the crime, would not fall within the scope of the ph...
Read more