This article aims to provide information relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution (Informal Dispute Resolution) which is considered a new technique for the resolution of disputes in western countries. Still, from the study, it has been proven that it is not a new technique, and has been in practice in one form or other in different times and civilizations; it is a conversion to new title and system with some modification, but the aim is same as was in ancient time, i.e., the historical evolution of the system from Torah period to present time presents the whole picture of this system. The study highlighted both practices in ancient and present times which shows that the system has been working successfully in all the times. Therefore, it can be applied elsewhere in the world, so the researcher is of the view that this system is more sustainable in any form than the formal system because it reflects the friendly, amicable, long-lasting relationships between parties.

The Qazi-led dispute resolution, Jirga and Panchayat forums of informal justice continue to play a significant role in Pakistan as they offer cheaper, quicker, and more culturally intelligible channels of resolving disputes where formal courts are sluggish, expensive, and physically remote. This paper discusses nature of those mechanisms as parallel alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or a constitutional issue. The mixed-method study was based on an analysis of doctrinal rights and a qualitative mapping of practice of forums, which allows determining the procedural fairness, pathways of enforcement, and impact of rights on vulnerable groups. The evidence indicates that such forums can only be considered as legitimate ADR in cases where those involved join in proceedings, which are truly voluntary, such results are not punitive and significant exit to state courts is maintained. The article suggests controlled integration by means of court-mediated integration, minimum protection and prohibition of punitive and coercive measures.