1. By this listed application, the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 2-11-1998, passed on the joint statement signed by the learned counsel for the parties, disposing of the appeal on the basis of the terms and conditions embodied in the joint statement, may be recalled as the appellant had neither instructed his counsel to make a statement nor had agreed to vacate the -premises in dispute on or before 1-2-1999. This application is supported by the affidavit of the appellant, wherein he has stated that he never instructed his counsel to give an undertaking or statement before this Court for having agreed to vacate the premises in dispute on or before 1-2-1999 and further that his counsel had no authority to compromise the matter on his behalf. It was further submitted that the order, dated 2-11-1998 was of no legal consequence and void as his Advocate had played fraud, which resulted in deprivation of his valuable rights. The listed application is without any substance inasmuch as in the Vakalatnama, filed by Mr. Abdul Wajid Wayne, Advocate, he was authorised by the appellant to withdraw or compromise the proceedings and all acts authorizedly taken by a duly appointed Advocate, are binding on the party. In the case of Mst. Noor Jehan v. Azmat Hussain Farooq qui 1992 SCM R 876, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that authority to compromise given to an Advocate would not empower the Advocate to compromise dispute which was not subject-matter of the case. Statement relative to vacation of the premises in dispute was very much the subject-matter of the appeal and the Advocate for the appellant could have validly settled/compromised on the issue relating to transfer of promotion.
The Supreme Court observed that a counsel has ample authority to do whatever he considers best for his client and such acts are binding upon the client unless limitations have been imposed upon his authority.
' Upon the above discussions, I find that the listed application is A without any substance and merits no consideration. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.
2. In view of the order at Serial No,1, this application has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.