Find a Lawyer

IFTIKHAR RASHID versus HAMEED AKHTAR NIAZI

Article 185 (3) conflict with the withdrawal of the Civil Procedure Code Order XXIII of the CPC and the adjustment of the suit O XXIII, R 3 and section 12 (2), the proof of suit for misrepresentation under section 12 (2) When the High Court agreed on a case to aggravate the matter between the two government employees on the allotment of the house, the High Court's order in the settlement case was that the appellant vacated the house in question on 29 January 1995 and handed over the vacant possession. Will be done. The defendant and the government had to ensure that the first available house of the same quality / category was allotted to the appellant before the expiry of the deadline and that the vacant possession be granted against the Government Review Order. Was dismissed for framing section 12 (2), on the basis of the CPC question, on the basis that it was found out on 2 2 1995 that the Note Fiction 7 11 94 (relating to the retirement of public servant / respondent) was relevant. The defendants were deliberately concealed from their court by the date, 22 199 1994. The appellant further asserted that if he had known those facts till 22 12 1994, he would not have agreed to any compromise with the respondent, which is applied under section 12 (2); It is satisfactory in cases where consent is obtained. Misrepresentation, fraud or where the order of the question was without jurisdiction merely alleges that the defendant did not inform the appellant or the court that he had resigned from 19 2 1995, however, Such an aspect cannot be falsified. The pending notification was published in the Gazette and the fact that after the termination of employment how to become a advocate from Sita Road lawyer