Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 175 of 1980, decided on 25th January, 1981.

‑‑ O. XXI, r. 29 read with O. XLIII, r. I‑Alternative remedy-- Notwithstanding remedy against compromise decree being available by way of appeal under O. XLIII, r. 1 yet suit for declaration, held, proper where alternative remedy doubtful or inconvenient or not efficacious, or resulting in grave injustice.

‑‑ O. III, r. 4‑Advocate‑Power to compromise‑Attorney appointing Advocate on behalf of respondent ‑ Respondent alleging Attorney himself had no power to admit claim and to compromise‑Held, attorney could not have authorised Advocate to compromise matter on behalf of respondent‑Since a delegatee can only delegate what has been conferred upon him and also authorised.‑[Counsel and client -Advocate].

Anwar Hussain Rizvi v. Mazahir Hussain Zaidi 1971 S C M R 634 ref.

---------O. XXI, r. 29‑Object of rule to enable judgment‑debtor and decree‑holder to adjust their claims against each other and to prevent multiplicity of execution proceedings.

Kannammal v. Muthukumasraswami Chetty A I R 1936 Mad. 102 ref.

-----O. XXI, r. 29‑Security for stay of execution ‑ Third party claiming property mentioned for satisfaction of decree as its own --Decree‑holder alleging suit against him to be collusive to defeat compromise decree‑Held, investigation and consideration of facts will seriously prejudice petitioner and in circumstances, stay of execution proceedings should have been ordered on terms as to security.

Maqbool Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.

Abdul Ghafar Mangi for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

Azhar Ali Siddiqui for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1980.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.