کرایہ دار نے مالک کے خلاف دعوی حکم امتناعی دوامی دائر کیا۔ دوران سماعت مابین فریقین راضی نامہ ہوگیا اور مدعی نے روبرو عدالت بیان قلمبند کرایا کہ وہ چھ ماہ میں اراضی متدعویہ خالی کر دیگا۔

 عدالت نے مدعی کے اس بیان کی روشنی میں دعوی بصیغہ واپسی خارج کردیا۔مدعی نے اپنے بیان کی پاسداری نہیں کی اور مدعاعلیہ نے اجرا دائر کر دیا

لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر کوئی فریق اپنے بیان کی پاسداری نہ کرے تو دعوی بصیغہ واپسی خارج ھونے کے باوجود بھی وہ اپنے بیان کے پابند ہے اور اسکے خلاف اجرا دائر کیا جا سکتا ھے

2018 CLC 1833

Suit for permanent injunction by the tenant---Compromise between the parties---Undertaking by plaintiff (tenant) to vacate the suit property ---Execution of order ---Scope---Compromise was effected between the parties and plaintiff-petitioner got recorded his statement that he would vacate the premises within six months---Plaintiff-petitioner did not honour his undertaking and defendant-respondent moved execution petition which was dismissed by the Executing Court but Appellate Court remanded the matter with the direction to decide the same in accordance with law---Validity---Provision relating to execution of decree were also applicable to execution of orders--- Court was equipped with the jurisdiction not only to adjudicate upon disputes and pass order rather it possessed power to get its order implemented---Suit was not simply withdrawn rather same was decided as per undertaking given by the plaintiff-petitioner---Plaintiss-petitioner was bound by his undertaking and there was no occasion for him to fall back--- Undertaking made by a party before the Court had to be given sanctiy while applying the principle of estoppel as well as moral and ethical rules---Conduct of a party was relevant in the Court--- Plaintiff-petitioner had voluntarily opted before the Court to evict the rented premises---Said undertaking had become final and absolute for him to vacate the premises and any retraction could not be permitted--- Sanctity of judicial proceedings had to be safeguarded at any cost---Scope of S.36, C.P.C. was not considered by the Executing Court-- Impugned order passed by District Judge did not call for interference Revision was dismissed in circumitances