Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAREEF versus STATE

Contempt of Court Act 1976 Section 3 The court government seized the land owned by the landlord, a dispute arose in connection with the determination of the lease amount and the award given by the commissioner to the lease amount. Challenged the landlord before adding. And said that the order of the High Court was affirmed by the petitioner of the Supreme Court, who was one of the landlords, but he was not a party to the appeal filed by the other landlords before the High Court. Although he was not a party to the appeal before the High Court, he was entitled to the same relief extended to other landlords who were appellants before the High Court Petitioner in the petition for contempt of court against the respondents. Alleged that the authority did not increase the amount as per the High Court decision, and Was violated by the Crusader. Thus, a contempt of court action should be initiated against him, whose failure to resolve the complaint did not result in the corruption of the petitioner's contempt of court Act 1976 as the petitioner was not a party to the appeal before the High Court. In addition, when the authority was implementing the High Court decision, under the assumption that only the landlords appealed to the High Court. The court was entitled to an extension of the amount of land acquired, however, despite the fact that it was not a party to the appeal because of the ownership of the land. best law firms from Goular Khel lawyer