' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- This petition is directed against Sindh High Court judgment, dated 28-2- 2006 dismissing High Court appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court disposing of a suit filed by the petitioner for possession of suit-land, permanent injunction and damages.
2. Petitioner filed the aforesaid Suit No,1059 of 2000 against the respondent on the averments that parties entered into a sale agreement on 5-10-2000 in respect of a plot of land measuring 218 square yards situated at Rain Swami Quarters, Karachi. The sale consideration was settled at Rs,45,00,000. A sum of Rs,12,00,000 was paid by the respondent as earnest money while balance amount was payable upto 7-5-2001. It is the case of the petitioner that she served a legal notice on the respondent requiring payment of the balance amount within seven days but without any response, therefore, she cancelled the agreement of sale as well as the power of attorney executed in favor of her husband Sartaj son of Ramzan. It is said that on his part, respondent filed Suit No,1417 of 2001 for declaration, specific performance, injunction and damages against the petitioner on 16- 10-2001. As per averments in the plaint, after the service of summons, petitioner filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. Accepting the claim of the respondent and agreed to specifically perform the same, subject to payment of balance sale consideration of Rs,33,00,000. The suit was decreed by the High Court, subject to deposit of balance consideration of Rs,33,00,000 with the Nazir of High Court within one month. On being informed, the petitioner was required to execute sale-deed in favor of the respondent or his nominee. After the execution of sale-deed, petitioner was allowed to withdraw consideration from the Court. In the event of failure to deposit aforesaid amount, the suit shall stand dismissed. Petitioner states that the respondent sought review of the High Court judgment, which was dismissed with costs of Rs,10,000 vide order, dated 14-1-2002. A High Court appeal was also preferred and dismissed vide order dated 8-3-2002. Petitioner asserted that after the dismissal of respondent's appeal, she asked for vacant possession of the plot through legal notice, which could not be served but possession of the plot was not handed over to her. In the prayer clause, petitioner claimed damages of Rs,25,00,000 in addition to the relief of possession and mandatory injunction, directing the respondent to return all original documents in respect of the plot in suit.
3. The suit was resisted. Before the issues could be settled, respondent made an offer of not contesting the suit, provided the petitioner returned the earnest money amounting to Rs,12,00,000.
Respondent was constrained to take this stance in view of the glaring fact that during the pendency of suit, petitioner had illegally and by use of force dispossessed her of the plot and raised construction of a five storey building on the site, in which third party interests were created and tenements transferred to third party. Petitioner's counsel readily accepted the offer, therefore, the suit was disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petitioner undertook to refund the sum of Rs,12,00,000 to the respondent within two months. However, she did not abide by her solemn commitment and the consent decrees passed by the High Court on its original side vide order, dated 24-5-2004. Petitioner preferred High Court Appeal before a Division Bench, which has been dismissed through the judgment dated 28-2-2006, hence this petition.
4. At the hearing of the petition, we cautioned Mr. Iftikhar Javed Qazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that this petition being frivolous and vexatious, petitioner would be liable to heavy costs, if he did not succeed in obtaining leave to appeal. Counsel, however, insisted that the petition be heard and decided on merits. Learned counsel vehemently urged that the power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favor of her husband Sartaj did not contain any clause authorizing him to enter into a compromise in the suit filed by her and that the concession made before the High Court by Mrs. Surrayia Rahim, Advocate on her behalf was completely unauthorized and without lawful authority. This ground was raised before the Division Bench of the High Court and has been elaborately dealt with in minute details. Mrs. Surrayia Rahim, Advocate was also called by the Division Bench to confirm the concession made by her before the learned Single Judge. Perusal of the impugned judgment clearly shows that the said counsel stated before the Bench that to her knowledge, the petitioner had forcibly taken the possession of the disputed plot from the respondent during the pendency of suit for possession. It was under such circumstances that, in order to save her from criminal and civil liability of such illegal act, at the spur of moment she accepted the offer of respondent in terms of the orders of the High Court dated 24-5-2004.
According to her acceptance of offer on her part was in the larger interests of the petitioner, who would have faced criminal proceedings for taking the law in her own hands. Indeed it was this observation of the High Court, which had weighed with us while administering a word of caution to the learned counsel before the commencement of his arguments. We are afraid, we cannot loose sight of the observation of the High Court as the Honourable Judges of the High Court have no reason to record incorrect statement of facts. High Court noted with concern that petitioner after forcible dispossession of the respondent had raised five storeys building on the site and created third patty interests. This fact was neither denied before the High Court nor disputed before this Court. We do not feel persuaded to agree with the submission that the husband acting as attorney of the petitioner was not authorized to enter into a compromise or settlement on her behalf. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner is far from satisfaction and propriety. It clearly reflects on her lack of integrity and fairness, which can only be regretted and deprecated. On the part of the counsel, it is always advisable to discourage such clients and not to accept such briefs before superior Courts, which always leads to tarnish the image of noble profession of law as well as the judiciary.
5. No other ground has been urged in support of this petition, which is completely ill-founded, ill- advised and incompetent. It is accordingly dismissed with special costs of Rs,25,000, which shall be payable to respondent. Petitioner shall deposit the amount in the office of this Court within 30 days from today, failing which law shall take its own course.