Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus MUHAMMAD LATIF

Civil Procedure Code Order XXXIX Temporarily Joint and Inter-State Orders O XL, R 1 & O XXXIX, RR 1 & 2 (3) Independent Jammu and Kashmir Interim Authorization Act (VIII of 1974), Attachment and Recipient of Section 42 Property Appointment of the trial court's question regarding the property and conditions required by the trial court was attached by the plaintiff to the plaintiff's claim that he was in possession of such property. Was dismissed / Appellate Court dismissed the trial court's order. But the Appellate Trial Court and the High Court, which was reinstated by the High Court, on the basis of the transfer of the application by the claimants, for no good reason, accepted that the property was forcibly disposed of by the defendants. The defendant was asserted, however, his claim that the plaintiffs could be claimed and the report submitted by the processor server was insufficient with the view of the law that it can be concluded that the defendants were, in fact, dismissed by the defendants. Was. The case was insufficient to approve the order to be attached to the property through O XL, R 1, despite the provisional provisional restraining service on them, rarely utilizing the recipient's appointment CPC. And such power would be used to protect it. In addition to all parties, the interests of the property which is the subject of litigation cannot be disturbed by the ownership of the persons in possession of the property unless it is concerned about the loss of property or the transfer or irreparable loss or injury. There are no charges unless the claimant agrees to attach to the property when you need a advocate from Manoabad lawyer