| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2454 2017 SLD 2454 2017 YLR 1713 |
Sindh High Court
J.M. No. 02 of 2015, decision Dated: 9-6-2016. Hearing Date: 11-3-2016.
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Ziauddin Junejo A.A.G. for Applicant No. 1.G.N. Qureshi for Applicant No. 2.Khawaja Shamsul Islam for
Respondents.
J.M. No. 02 of 2015, decision Dated: 9-6-2016. Hearing Date: 11-3-2016.
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Ziauddin Junejo A.A.G. for Applicant No. 1.G.N. Qureshi for Applicant No. 2.Khawaja Shamsul Islam for
Respondents.
PROVINCE OF SINDH, CHIEF SECRETARY AND 7 OTHERSVS BILQEES AND 16 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12 (2) & O. XXIII, R. 3---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23 & 65---Compromise decree, setting aside of---Fraud and misrepresentation---Withdrawal of application for compromise---Words "lawful agreement or compromise" occurring in R.3 of O.XXIII, C.P.C.---Scope---Contention of applicants was that compromise decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation---Application for compromise of suit was accepted and that of withdrawal of compromise application was dismissed---Validity---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was not a substitute of an appeal---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was only competent in case a fraud or misrepresentation was committed with the court---No fraud or misrepresentation had been committed with the court in the present case---Applicants should have preferred an appeal against the order whereby their request for withdrawing the compromise application had been declined---Order with regard to dismissal of withdrawal application could not be impugned through an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Agreement which had been placed as a compromise before the court ought to be lawful and not otherwise---Court was only competent to allow a lawful agreement to be entered into a compromise by passing a decree to that effect---If any agreement was not lawful then court ought not to pass any or decree to that effect or even if such or decree was passed then same to the extent of any unlawful agreement could not be executed---Criminal proceedings could not be compromised by the court in terms of O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C. being not lawful agreement---Compromise application to the extent of criminal proceedings should not have been entertained and to that extent impugned and decree was modified by the High Court---Plea of fraud and misrepresentation was not attracted in the present case---Certain clauses of compromise agreement with regard to criminal proceedings were not lawful and needed to be modified---Impugned order was modified to the extent of compromise of criminal proceedings---Application for setting aside of compromise decree was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Younus Khan and…