Find a Lawyer

GHULAM FATIMA versus IMDAD HUSSAIN

Punjab Pre-Amendment Act 1913 Section 15 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 14 Pre-Immediate Trial Decision to exercise the powers of third parties on the parties' statement, decree, According to the parties' statement on the payment of Rs. 7,000, the trial court also directed the plaintiff to hear the case for reducing the court fee to Rs. 6,000 to the applicants under the CPC. The cost of the case has been fixed at Rs 6,000, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. And then the trial court's decision was beyond jurisdiction, after which the plaintiff was presented before the plaintiff in the Civil Judge First Class who then tried the plaintiff, the same appellate court dismissed, however, the plaintiff's case. The High Court heard the case. In the second appeal it was held that the civil judge (the third class) could not direct the return of the case without clearly remembering the order and there was no such court decision. Arguments The High Court has given fresh time to uphold the first appellate court order and collect the undisclosed amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff conceded that because the original decree was consensual, it was not open to the plaintiff to cancel in this way. ; That it was the plaintiff himself who had first established the case in the court of the civil judge, class 3, and then agreed to approve the decision. That the plaintiff was not entitled to demand the delivery of Section 14, Limitation Act, 1908, and the decree contained the directive that the pre-specified amount was to be deposited and the direction had not been complied with. Will be best law firms from Arifwala lawyer