1. ' SYED ABDUL REHMAN, J.---C.M.A. No,654/1990 is an application under Sec.12(2) C.P.C. Read with Order XXIII Rules 1 & 2 and section 151 C.P.C.
2. Facts forming the background of this application are that appellant Noor Muhammad is transferee from the Settlement Department of the premises in dispute and as such a landlord thereof. He filed an ejectment application (Rent Case No, 690/1981) against Respondent No, 1 Muhammad Kamil, which was initially dismissed by the Controller, but on remand by this Court came to be allowed by the Controller. The order of ejectment was upheld by this Court in F.R.A. No, 375 of 1986 decided on 15-12-1988. Respondent No,1 filed Suit No, 877/1987 for cancellation of the transfer documents in favour of the appellant by the Settlement Authority on the original side of this Court. An application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Was filed by the appellant in that suit which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who tried the suit. H.CA. No,31 of 1989 was filed against the said order of dismissal which was admitted by the Division Bench. An application for withdrawal of appeal was filed stating that Respondent No,1 had withdrawn from the suit from which this High Court Appeal has arisen. The application was signed by the Respondent No,1 as well as his counsel and no objection was recorded by the Advocate or the appellant. Consequently permission was granted for withdrawal of the appeal as well as the suit and the two were dismissed as such by the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Chief Justice and my learned brother Mr. Justice Salahuddin.
3. ' It is alleged in the application under section 12 (2) C.P.C. That simultaneously with the compromise an oral agreement was entered into between the parties in presence of four or five respectable witnesses that the appellant shall not disturb the possession of the Respondent No,1 in respect of his portion. The appellant has not honoured the oral agreement and has filed the execution application. Hence this application under Section 12 (2) C.P.C.
4. We have heard Mr. Syed Ashfaque Hussain Advocate for the applicant at length. The compromise application was signed by the Respondent No,1 who is plaintiff in the suit and his counsel. Even otherwise the settled law is that a counsel has power to compromise on behalf of his client, in the absence of A specific bar to the contrary. Reliance in this connection may be placed in the case of Kulsoom Bai v. Shireen Bai reported in 1989 CLC 234 where, after referring to the law on the point in detail, it was held by one of us (Syed Abdur Rehman, J.) that a counsel had power to compromise the suit on behalf of his client.,unless there was a specific bar to the contrary.
5. ' The allegation that there was an oral agreement besides the written compromise application, is on the face of it unbelievable and absurd. With a view to discourage such a false plea from being raised in rent cases, which were being raised falsely in the past in abundance. Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was re-enacted by Sindh Act No,I of 1986 which makes it obligatory to obtain the permission of the authority passing the order whenever any agreement is made before or after such order. Admittedly in this case no such permission has been obtained.
6. We are, therefore, satisfied that this application is improper, mala fide and has been made only to protract and abuse the process of Court. In Iqbal Sultan v. Chand Sultana reported in 1990 CLC 366, it was held that an application for setting aside decree allegedly obtained by fraud and mis- representation under section 12 (2), C.P.C., if found to be improper, mala fide and having been made only to protract the proceedings and to abuse the process of the Court, could be dismissed by the Court without framing any issue or recording any evidence.
7. ' We are of the clear view that this false plea of oral agreement as well as the application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. Which is based on it, are false, mala fide and have been made in order to harass the appellant and to protract the proceedings and the unauthorised possession of Respondent No,1.
8. ' These are the reasons for which today we dismissed C.M.A. No