On behalf of the complainant fresh vakalatnama is filed and to that effect one petition is also filed. On behalf of the opposite party nos. 3 and 6  haziras are filed. Supplementary BNA has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 5.

Today is fixed for hearing argument.

At the very inception of hearing argument ld. Counsel appearing for the respective parties submit that complainant is going to file one prayer praying for dropping of the case. Accordingly, complainant files a petition praying for dropping of the instant case on the ground of amicable settlement took place in between the parties. Ld. Advocates appearing for the opposite parties endorsed their objection including strong objection on the prayer of the complainant.

Moreover, on behalf of opposite party no. 6 one petition is filed stating that complainant filed a petition for withdrawal of the case and accordingly opposite party no. 6 has no objection. Copy served.

 At the instance of both sides said petition of the complainant is taken up for hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that necessary order may kindly be passed as per prayer of the complainant .

Ld. Advocate appearing for opposite party no. 6 submits that he has “no objection” against the prayer of the complainant.

On the other hand ld. Advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 3 submits that against the prayer of the complainant he has “no objection”, but there was no amicable settlement in between the parties. He also elaborately submits that he has only objection on the words “amicable settlement” alleged to have been taken place in between the parties.

Having heard the ld. Advocates for the parties and going through the materials on record, first of all it may be noted that the statements of petition of opposite party no. 6 that complainant has filed petition for withdrawal of the case is not correct, rather complainant filed her petition praying for dropping of the case.

Now, moot question is this whether the objection raised by the ld. Advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 3 to the effect that he has objection on the words “amicable settlement”  can stand as a hindrance in considering the prayer of the complainant or not.

Regard being had upon the submissions of the ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record, this Forum is of the view that it is quite clear from the submissions of ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 3 that he has “no objection” regarding the dropping of the case pursuant to the prayer of the complainant, but he has objection of the words “amicable settlement” alleged to have been taken place in between the parties. So, we can very much harbor to a conclusion that regarding the prayer for dropping of the case in fact, opposite parties have “no objection” save and except the words “amicable settlement” incorporated in the petition of the complainant.

Considering the total aspects of the case this Forum is of the clear view that the words “amicable settlement” if we eliminate, even then the contents of the prayer of the complainant praying for dropping of the case cannot stand as meritless. Rather we find that when complainant is very much interested to get the case dropped, this Forum cannot stand against such prayer, specially when regarding dropping there is objection.  Accordingly, this Forum is of the clear view that this Forum finds merit and substance in the prayer of the complainant.

Thus, the prayer of the complainant for dropping of the case is allowed but on condition that complaint is totally debarred from filing a fresh complaint before this Forum on the self same cause of action as well as the grounds taken in this complaint by the complainant.