Find a Lawyer

HADI BUX MEMON THROUGH ATTORNEY versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI

A. XXIII, R 3 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), During the hearing of the case filed by the Appellant, a petition was filed by the Appellant through the counsel for the petitioner, which contained the terms of the agreement / agreement. The decision should be made. The direct appeal between the parties was signed by the appellant's lawyer only and the signatures of the appellant or any of the defendants or their authorized agents were not tolerated for entering into any such agreement. The application was rejected by a single judge of The appellant stated that a High Court appeal has been filed against the order of dismissal. O XXIII, R 3, In order to allow the application for a trial settlement under CPC, the satisfaction of the court was necessary. Satisfaction was a relevant period and it varied from case to case. The present case did not show that O XXIII, R 3, CPC means there has been a compromise or at any time there was a matter between the parties. This cannot be remedied under the signatures of authorized agents or workers authorized by the law without the consent of the respondents, especially when the defendant executed such agreement. Was denied. solicitors from Mirpur (AJK) lawyer