Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑Art. 9‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Conciliatory talk taking place between parties in writ, proceedings‑‑Compromise arrived at in. public interest because it shortens litigation‑‑Compromise allowed in circumstances.

Munir A . Sheikh for Petitioner.

Khawaja Saeed‑uz‑Zafar for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 13th December, 1983.

This writ petition, which was in limine, is admitted to a regular hearing as the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has accepted notice and is being disposed of today by the consent of the parties.

2. There has been a conciliatory talk in this case in keeping wit the spirit of the statute out of which these proceedings arise. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.‑3 stated that he has full instructions to settle the matter, if possible, to secure his clients best interests.

3. As a result of conciliatory talk between the two learned counsel in which the petitioner also participated, it has been agreed to:

That the petitioner shall pay in Court readily a sum of Rs.35,00 by way of cross cheque in the name of respondent No. 3 in ful settlement of all the claims of the respondent arising out of th matrimony. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 states that respondent shall not claim any further sums including the dowry etc. from the petitioner as the entire matrimonial dispute no comes to an end. He has accordingly accepted in Court the cross. cheque in question.

4. I have considered the compromise. It appears to be lawful an is otherwise in public interest because it shortens litigation.' I would allow this compromise and dispose of the writ petition accordingly.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs in view of the course adopted by the parties.

M.Y.H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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