| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1520 2026 SLD 1520 = 2026 SCP 81 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P.L.A. No. 4417 & 4418/2024 [Against judgment dated 18.07.2024 passed in C.R.No.529-P of 2017 & 559-P of 2017 by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar]
Presented By: MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ MR. JUSTICE SHAHID BILAL HASSAN
Mr. Fazal Karim, ASC
C.P.L.A. No. 4417 & 4418/2024 [Against judgment dated 18.07.2024 passed in C.R.No.529-P of 2017 & 559-P of 2017 by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar]
Presented By: MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ MR. JUSTICE SHAHID BILAL HASSAN
Mr. Fazal Karim, ASC
Mst. Asma Begum & others (In both cases) …Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Abdul Hameed (deceased) through LRs & others (In both cases) …Respondent(s)
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 36
Summary The dispute concerns enforcement of an undertaking/compromise tied to Inheritance Mutation No. 2534. Respondents sued claiming a gift deed; that suit was dismissed at all levels. The parties gave an undertaking/compromise (including before this Court) reducing the petitioners’ predecessor’s share to 100 kanals. Petitioners sought execution to recover their share per the undertaking; execution courts held the petition maintainable. The Peshawar High Court set aside those execution orders and dismissed the execution petition on 18.07.2024. The Supreme Court held that orders based on compromise or undertakings are binding and enforceable under section 36 CPC; it set aside the High Court judgment and restored the execution proceedings, directing the Executing Court to conclude execution expeditiously. Core points The controversy: whether a court-recorded undertaking/compromise is enforceable by execution and whether the High Court rightly set aside executing courts’ orders. Undertakings and compromises recorded by courts have binding effect and are enforceable even if no formal decree is drawn. Section 36 CPC makes execution provisions applicable, so orders (including those based on compromise) can be executed like decrees. Precedents cited: Mehar Zulfiqar Ali Babu v. Govt. of Punjab (1997 SCMR 117), Ranjit Singh Hazari v. Juman Meah (PLD 1961 Dacca 842), Kilachand Devchand & Co. (AIR 1934 Bombay 452), Hassan Masud Malik v. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal (1995 SCMR 766), Bakhtawar v. Amin (1980 SCMR 89). Executing Court correctly treated the execution petition as maintainable and refused to re-open matters settled by compromise. High Court erred in interfering with execution proceedings and by dismissing the execution petition. Disposition: Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeal, set aside the High Court judgment dated 18.07.2024, and ordered the Executing Court to proceed and conclude execution expeditiously. Law and sections Law / Precedent Section / Citation Short explanation Application to this case Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Execution of orders Section 36 CPC Provides that the provisions relating to execution of decrees…