Find a Lawyer

YOUNUS WARIND versus NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI

Specific Relief Act 1877 Section 12 Sindh Chief Court Rules (O Section), RR 49 and 159 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O III, R1 and O VII The specific date on the defendant was considered to be good and the lawyer acting on his behalf to file a lawyer, however, failed to file a written statement or counter affidavit, under which the final settlement. The case was settled, two petitions were filed by the defendant's lawyer, R159 and R49, to provide copies of the Rules (O section) of the Sindh Chief Court and Failure to deposit the treasury was dismissed No application / petition was filed against the order of removal under which the removal order was finalized with no return to the contents of the contents. In the case of The plaintiff, which was on firm affirmation, was deemed correct and the suit was pronounced, under which the defendants would have to submit the balance amount within a period of time. Following such deposits, the plaintiff was instructed to execute the lawsuit and legal proceedings: the process of fair sale to the claimant for the land he owned. The plaintiff was directed to execute a sale contract for the underground land in favor of the plaintiffs on failure to execute the same Nazir court. The plaintiffs had to bear all the costs of the sales contract and other government obligations. And the claimant had to pay a certain amount as a nail fee before he could process the sale jobs for fresh advocates from Dera Bugti lawyer