| Case ID |
234f6706-a122-4418-8d74-d906213cd40c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CMA No. 654 of 1990 in Rich Court Appeal No. 31 of |
| Decision Date |
Jun 25, 1990 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The application CMA No. 654/1990 was dismissed as it was found to be improper and malafide, aimed at abusing the court's process. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to written agreements, dismissing the claims of an oral agreement as unbelievable. The court upheld the settled law that a counsel can compromise on behalf of their client, provided there is no specific prohibition against it. The decision highlighted the necessity of obtaining permission for any agreements made in relation to rent cases, as stipulated by the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. This ruling serves to discourage false claims and ensure the integrity of court proceedings. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the dismissal of CMA No. 654 of 1990 concerning a rent dispute between Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Kamil. The Sindh High Court ruled that the application was improper and aimed at delaying proceedings. The court found the allegations of an oral agreement, in addition to a written compromise, to be absurd. This case emphasizes the significance of written agreements in legal matters, particularly in rent cases, and reinforces the authority of counsel to act on behalf of their clients without explicit restrictions. The ruling serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances, ensuring that the legal process is not misused. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SYED ABDUR REMAN,
ABDUL RAHIM KAZI
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Ashfaque Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
NOOR MUHAMMAD
|
| Respondents |
another,
MUHAMMAD KAMIL
|
| Citations |
1990 SLD 153,
1990 PLJ 509
|
| Other Citations |
1990 CLC 366
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
|
| Sections |
12(2),
22
|