FARHAT NAZIR vs FAWAD AHMAD O — 2025 CLC 1070 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

FARHAT NAZIR VS FAWAD AHMAD O. XXII, R. 1 ---Preliminary decree, passing of---Suit, withdrawal of---Plaintiff's right to withdraw suit after passing of preliminary decree---Scope---Withdrawal of suit for partition was denied by the Trial Court on the ground that preliminary decree had already been passed---Whether once a preliminary decree has been passed in a suit, the suit can be allowed to be withdrawn or not?---Held, that it was an incontrovertible and well-established principle of law that the plaintiff has an unqualified right to withdraw the suit at any stage of the proceedings---Imperatively , in assessing the propriety of the plaintiff's exercise of the unqualified right to withdraw a suit, the Court must refrain from imposing restrictions that would undermine, curtail, obstruct, or nullify the statutory entitlement conferred upon the plaintiff---The judicial authority must, in all such instances, acknowledge the plaintiff's absolute prerogative where no prejudice is caused to any party---The underlying objective is to ensure that such unfettered rights are exercised in a manner with the equitable dispensation of justice rather than in a way that extinguishes the legally vested rights of the plaintiff---Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, expressly confers upon the plaintiff an unequivocal right to withdraw the suit at any stage subsequent to its institution, whether against all or any of the defendants---Said prerogative extends to the withdrawal or abandonment of either the entire claim or any portion thereof---However, said general principle becomes inapplicable in instances where a preliminary decree has been passed and, consequently, third-party interests have crystallized that would be prejudicially affected by such withdrawal; in such contingencies, the exercise of the right to withdraw is contingent upon obtaining consent from such affected third parties---Plaintiff retains an unfettered right to withdraw the suit in certain categories of suits or proceedings where both plaintiff and defendant may potentially be entitled to relief---In the present case, after the passing of the preliminary decree and after submission of detailed report of Local Commission, which was objected to by the defendants/petitioners, the Trial Court had ordered the auction of the suit-property; however, meanwhile the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a compromise, and a Family Settlement Deed was executed among them and the same was brought on the record---Said compromise deed transpired that both parties, i.e. the plaintiff and the defendants, did not wish to proceed with the matter further due to a family settlement---No doubt , the preliminary decree created a right in favour of parties, however, both the parties did not want to enforce the same through the Court proceedings, instead they preferred to get their matter settled through family settlement---Persons united by lineal descent from a common progenitor or by proximate consanguinity had executed a family settlement deed with the aim and objective of amicably resolving existing controversies with the intention of preserving domestic tranquility---A family settlement constitutes an arrangement whereby cognate kindred mutually undertake to compose their differences and terminate existing disputes through permanent adjustment---Such concordats are designed to establish familial harmony and reciprocal benevolence, thereby, securing domestic peace---The judiciary accords particular sanctity to such familial arrangements and sustains their validity when concluded with bona fide intention---This jurisprudential principle has evolved through prolonged adjudicatory recognition as an efficacious instrument to deter litigiousness motivated by avarice, particularly in matters concerning the distribution of hereditary estates---High Court set-aside the impugned order; consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff stood dismissed as withdrawn in terms of O. XXIII, R. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Revision was allowed accordingly.

FARHAT NAZIR vs FAWAD AHMAD O — 2025 CLC 1070 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC