PLD 2023 Lahore 344
Suit for injunction and declaration. Compromise --- Binding effect --- Precondition ---
Earlier suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs was withdrawn unilaterally thereafter they filed instant suit for implementing a promise made by appellant / defendant in earlier proceedings --- Trial Court rejected the plaint but Lower Appellate Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh --- Validity --- Statement was given in absence of opponent party and even without any notice on application to withdraw earlier suit --- Compromise could become effective only when the two or more parties agreed to settle a real or supposed claim in which each party had surrendered something in concession to each other --- Unilateral statement given by respondents / plaintiffs and that too in absence of other side could not be taken as mutual concession or mutual promise , having any binding effect , especially when statement regarding so - called out of court compromise was not backed by any document --- Such statement did not fulfill requirements of O. XXIII , R. 3 , C.P.C. , which necessitated satisfaction of the Court --- If such an easy way of escaping restriction contained in O. XXIII , R. 1 ( 3 ) , C.P.C. by to compromise was simply giving unilateral statement as permitted , the very purpose of the provision of O. XXIII , C.P.C. , would be negated --- High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court --- Appeal was allowed , in circumstances .
0 Comments