Law: Partnership Act, 1932

Section: 18,19

Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 34

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: S.2(2),36,151,O.XXIII,XLI,R.3,31

Partnership Act (IX of 1932)--- ----Ss. 18 & 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R. 3---Partners, liability of---Consent statement---Applicability---Suit for dissolution, rendition of accounts, recovery and injunction was filed by partnership concern and its partners against another partnership concern and remaining partners---Suit was disposed of being compromised on basis of consent given by two partners---Validity---Suit was filed against five persons comprising three natural legal persons and two partnership firms---Consent statements were given by persons who did not fall into either category and were mentioned as partners of a defendant partnership firm---Other than two partners of defendant partnership firm, no other defendant was present or had expressly conveyed his consent for compromise contemplated vide order in question---Appellants were not expressed as parties to order in question---Order in question was void in respect of appellants including defendant firm therefore, no coercive proceedings to implement consent order could have been issued---Division Bench of High Court maintained order in question by Single Judge of the High Court only to the extent of two persons who made statement and set aside same to extent of remaining defendants---Intra-court appeal was allowed accordingly. Combined Enterprises v. WAPDA Lahore PLD 1988 SC 39; New Era Builders Karachi v. Pakistan Insurance Corporation and another PLD 1977 Kar. 822; Ahmed Khan v. Irshad Begum and others 2007 MLD 331; Muhammad Akram Shaikh v. Pak Libya Holding Company (Private) Limited and others PLD 2010 Kar. 400 and Maulana Attaur Rehman v. Al Haj Sardar Umar Farooq and others PLD 2008 SC 663 ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AGHA FAISAL, J.---- The present appeals assail the order dated 01.06.2013 ("Impugned Order") delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit 323 of 2012 ("Suit"). The appellants impugned the findings of the learned Single Judge with respect to C.M.A. 7278 of 2012 ("Attachment Application"), filed by the respondent No.1 seeking attachment of bank accounts and inventories of the appellant No.1, and C.M.A. 9078 of 2012 ("Recall Application"), filed…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492