TANYA KNITWEAR (PVT.) LTD. versus FIRST WOMEN BANK LTD
Section 17 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXXIII, R 3 and Section 151 consent decree, keeping the decision on the scope suit filed by the bank, on the basis of the joint statement made by both counsel. Was decided in favor of. Two years after the parties approved the consent decree, the bank filed an agreement to change the material dates or set aside the order, based on the merits to decide the case. The statement filed by was not without authority. Any action against the lawyer who was allegedly compromised would result in an order of consent that was based on the record, where the change in dates could be seriously prejudiced, after a delay of more than two hours. The High Court may be reviewed or interfered with by. For years, no State Bank circular violation was identified by the bank as it was outside the scope of section 151; the CPC would review such case on a merit. The High Court did not find any item. Any mistake or omission in an earlier consent order that could call for a correction because the agreement was based on the statements of both parties, nor did it provide any basis for withdrawal or order of the agreement. Was gone and no revision options were available.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
