| Case ID |
e9f1cc4a-9791-4d6e-b503-4156cb89f4d2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 37 of 1989/BWP |
| Decision Date |
Nov 17, 2000 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 17, 2000 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The court found that the petitioners had indeed authorized their counsel to make statements on their behalf during the proceedings of the case concerning the specific performance of a contract. The court emphasized that the decisions made by the courts below were based on thorough scrutiny of the evidence presented and did not suffer from any material irregularity. The court also noted that the petitioners' claims of fraud were unfounded as their counsel was duly appointed and authorized to represent them, thus upholding the integrity of the initial decree. The petitioners were unable to demonstrate any legal grounds that would warrant the interference of the High Court in the decisions of the lower courts, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Writ Petition No. 37 of 1989/BWP, the Lahore High Court dealt with a dispute concerning the specific performance of a contract between the petitioners and respondents. The petitioners claimed that the respondents had agreed to sell them land for a specified amount but later contested the authority of their counsel to make statements during the proceedings. The court examined the validity of these claims and found that the petitioners had indeed authorized their counsel to act on their behalf. This case highlights the importance of clear communication and authorization in legal representation and underscores the principles governing specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. The decision reinforces the notion that once a decree has been passed based on authorized statements, it is binding unless substantial evidence of fraud or misrepresentation is established. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts and emphasizing the need for parties to ensure their counsel's authority is clearly defined to avoid disputes in legal proceedings. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J
|
| Lawyers |
Aijaz Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioners,
Ch. Abdus Sattar for Respondent No. 6
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD SHAM and ANOTHERS
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 7 others
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 1775,
2002 CLC 250
|
| Other Citations |
Dilshad v. Additional District Judge, Multan and others 1986 SCMR 1396,
Mst. Zaidat v. Shahadat and others 1989 SCMR 1392,
Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others 1991 SCMR 970,
Hasan Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam and others PLD 1991 SC 65
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
|
| Sections |
12,
12(2),
O. III, Rr. 1, 4,
Art.199
|