Find a Lawyer

JAMILA HAMID versus ATTA MUHAMMAD

Against the Appellant against the judgment passed on 30 April 1974, section 30 and section 19A of the Contract Act 1872, IX of 1908, Article 95 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 for the possession of the respondents. The verdict was pronounced. The former party was recognized under Order 3 197 1974, under which the request for rejection of the petition stated that the parties had compromised on 97 1977. The request for separation of the former party decree was dismissed because the appellant was withdrawn by the settlement so the appellant's order was granted after the permission of the former party decree dated 30 197 1974 to be retained. There was an authorized party under which the former party decree was set aside. The order was rejected. Appellant filed suit to avoid a previous party decree on the basis of fraud on the request of the plaintiff / appellant that the order of consent was obtained through fraud, an undisclosed order under sections 19 and 19 under a contract act 1872 There will be a revoked order. And will remain operative, unless one side has been set aside for fraud by a competent court, detection of the three courts under Article 95 Limitation Act 1908 was correct. The party was challenging the decree, which, by compromise, allowed it to remain legally valid and efficient, withdrawing its application and leaving it in one place, thus appealing to the hot and cold. Is rejected without merit conditions top advocate from Akhora Khattak lawyer