Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MALIK versus CHAIRMAN, MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MIRPUR

Ordinarily, O VL, R 17 & OI, R 10, Civil Procedure Code VI VI of the Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), requires the appellant to amend the constitutional petition and enforce the new respondents. The government's reason for refusing to amend the Article 42 petition, the High Court, was that the appellant was not alert to know that he had cause for action in 1980, while he applied for amendment in 1996. In 1996, no party could be allowed to establish a constitutional petition. If the 1980 notification, and the special rules thereafter, are now challenged, hundreds of allotments will be thrown in pursuit, if the 1980 notification in connection with the creation of such courses for notification and special rules. I had to challenge the government. At stake, which was not allowed, was the ban on fresh constitutional application, permission to add a new party (government) and to allow the appellant o Challenge notification When the sixteen-year delay had passed, the appellant's discussion allowed. It could not be said that the proposed amendment was born after filing a written statement in which the respondents stated that their case was subject to a special rule referred to in the High Court file in 1981. This amended written statement was filed on May 13, 1992, and while the application for amendment was issued on January 18, 1996, there was no explanation of the delay, appeals against unknown orders of the High Court were also dismissed. property advocate from Muzaffargarh lawyer