' MAMOON ICAZ1, J.---Leave has been sought in respect of the judgment of the Sindh High Court dated 9-2-1995, whereby High Court appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case which are elaborately stated in the judgment of the High Court are reproduced from the same as follows:- "Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that admiralty suit being Suit No,725 of 1993 was filed by M/s Ghaffar Corporation against m.v. Arabian Express, M/s. Sama Asia Shipping, M/s. Argonaftis (Pvt.) Ltd. And Chairman, Karachi Port Trust. Subsequently, the defendants Nos.3 and 4 above were struck off by an order passed on 7-6-1994. The prayer in the suit was as under:--
(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order for arrest of the vessel m.v. Arabian Express presently beached at Manora near m.v. Himalaya and further order that the sale of the same under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court and direct that the proceeds of the vessel be deposited in this Court.
' That pass a judgment and decree against the defendants jointly and severally with mark-up of 24% p.a. Until the judgment and decree and grant further mark-up at the same rate until the payment of decretal amounts.
' Grant cost of the suit.
' In the said suit an application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. (C.MA. No,840/94) was moved on 5- 6-1994 whereby the parties had compromised in the matter. This compromise was signed by the plaintiff, his Advocate Mr. S. Hassan Zafar, Mr. Akhtar A. Channar, Advocate for defendants Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Mazhar, the Director of Defendants Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Muhammad Asif, Captain of the vessel.
The order was passed on 7-6-1994 in terms of the above compromise and the suit against the defendants Nos.3 and 4 was dismissed. Thereafter, an application being C.MA. No,904/94 was filed by the plaintiff/decree-holder under Order XXI, Rule 1, C.P.C. Read with Rules 757 to 760 of Rules under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act. This application was signed by the plaintiff Mahmood Ghaffar and his Advocate Mr. S. Hassan Zafar, Advocate Mr. Akhtar Channar, Advocate for defendants and one Muhammad Asif on behalf of the defendants in the capacity as Captain of the vessel. This application came up for hearing on 29-6-1994 in presence of parties and also in presence of Mr. Muhammad Saleem, Advocate who was appearing along with Mr. Akhtar Channar, Advocate for defendants Nos.1 and 2, who are the judgment-debtors. On this date the Captain of defendant No,1 and also Mr. IA. Ansari, his Chief Engineer and Raza Naqvi witness of sale transaction were present. The said application was disposed of by order passed on the same date i,e, 29-6- 1994. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. Being J.M. No,29 of 1994 praying that the decree dated 7-6-1994 be set aside as the same were obtained by the Plaintiff/DH by misrepresentation and fraud. The said application was contested by the Plaintiff/DH who filed his counter-affidavit. The learned Single Judge after hearing the Advocates for the parties was pleased to reject this application. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.'
3. As would appear from the impugned judgment, the main grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners was that order on compromise application had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud since Mr. Akhtar Channar who had been engaged as counsel by the petitioners had neither been authorised to enter into any compromise on their behalf nor did he represent the petitioners any longer after Mr. Rashid Munir and Mr. M. Saleem had been engaged by them to appear and act as Advocates on their behalf in the case pending before the learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court. Consequently, the compromise entered into on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Akhtar Channar on 5-6-1994 was a nullity, based upon fraud and misrepresentation.
4. As is further indicated by the impugned judgment, Mr. Akhtar Channar was called by the learned Judge of the High Court to appear before them and his statement was recorded on 9-2-1995. The statement given by him in the Court indicated that he had been engaged by the petitioners to act as their Advocate in the said case and the Vakalatnama, which had authorised him to compromise the case on behalf of his clients, had also been signed by one of the defendants, Muhammad Mazhar, represented in the case by the petitioners. The compromise application filed in the Court had also been signed by the captain of the vessel on the petitioner's behalf besides their counsel. Furthermore, Mr. M. Saleem, the counsel subsequently engaged by the petitioners was present in the Court during the hearing of C.MA. No,904 of 1994 under Order XXI and Rules 757 to 760 under Colonial Courts . Admiralty Act which had been filed to give further effect to the compromise decree. Under such circumstances, the subsequent stand taken by the petitioners was not accepted by the learned Judges of the High Court.
5. The circumstances enumerated above, in respect of which there is no controversy, clearly indicate that the authority given by the petitioners to Mr. Channar had never been revoked by them. As has already been observed by the learned Judges of the High Court, the fact that other counsel were also engaged by the petitioners to represent them in the case, by itself, cannot operate as revocation of the authority of the counsel either to represent the petitioners in the case or to enter into a compromise with the plaintiffs on the petitioners' behalf. Besides that, admittedly, the compromise application was signed not only by Mr. Channar, but the same was also signed by the Captain of the vessel on behalf of the petitioners. Furthermore, the presence of Mr. M. Saleem, one of the counsel subsequently engaged by the petitioners in the Court along with other representatives of the petitioners at the time of hearing of C.MA. No,904 of 1994 which had been filed under Order XXI and Rules 757 to 760 under Colonial Courts Admiralty Act after passing of the compromise decree further indicates that there was no objection in regard to the said compromise at that time. The circumstances, therefore, rule out the element of fraud alleged by the petitioners. In Mobile Eye Service of Pakistan v. Director, Social Welfare (PLD 1992 'Car. 183), where incidentally the judgment was delivered by one of us (Mamoon Kazi, J.), review of the judgment which was delivered after a compromise entered into by the petitioners' counsel on the latter's behalf, was declined upon the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation subsequently made by the latter when no objection had been taken at the relevant time. It was held in the case that a compromise entered into by the counsel- on behalf of a party would, under the circumstances, bind the latter.
6. In the result, leave is refused.