1990 PLP 696 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AALAM‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 696 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑O.XXIII, R.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Compromise‑‑‑Respondent settled the matter out of Court and had drawn a compromise decd‑‑‑Counsel stating that they had satisfied themselves that the compromise was genuine and that there was no impediment in its being acted upon‑‑‑Petition disposed of in terms of compromise.‑‑‑Compromise. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AALAM‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 696 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 696 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑O.XXIII, R.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Compromise‑‑‑Respondent settled the matter out of Court and had drawn a compromise decd‑‑‑Counsel stating that they had satisfied themselves that the compromise was genuine and that there was no impediment in its being acted upon‑‑‑Petition disposed of in terms of compromise.‑‑‑Compromise. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 696 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AALAM‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nasrullah Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑11‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in C. R. No.2178‑C of 1985). ‑‑‑O.XXIII, R.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Compromise‑‑‑Respondent settled the matter out of Court and had drawn a compromise decd‑‑‑Counsel stating that they had satisfied themselves that the compromise was genuine and that there was no impediment in its being acted upon‑‑‑Petition disposed of in terms of compromise.‑‑‑[Compromise].
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Nasrullah Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In this leave to appeal petition filed by a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, according to learned counsel appearing for the parties, the latter have settled the matter out of Court and have also drawn a compromise deed. The learned counsel further stated that they have satisfied themselves that the compromise is genuine and that there is no impediment in its being acted upon. The compromise is recorded and made part of this order in the form of its photostat copy as follows:‑‑ [Urdu version omitted] The afore recorded compromise in the above circumstances is accepted. This petition is converted into appeal and the same is disposed of in terms of said compromise. There shall be no order as to costs. M.A.K./M‑1013/S Parties compromised.