Find a Lawyer

FARIDUDDIN versus KARACHI DEVIPLOPMENT AUTHORITY

Specific Relief Act 1877 Sections 42, 54 and 55 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Suite for Declaration, Compulsory / Permanent Order Controversy Date of Birth / Plaintiff / Applicant who was born and educated in India. According to the Distance Calendar from India, which was the customary birth of the plaintiff / applicant in the relevant part of India, December 6, 1944, was Fasli, which if converted to the Christian calendar accordingly. 11 1934 Plaintiffs / Applicants served. 38 years, but her date of birth was never questioned by the defendant / defendant and after about 38 38 years, the defendant / respondent informed the plaintiff / applicant that her date of birth was 2 11 is 1931, which is claimed by the Plaintiff / Applicant and that he had to retire from the job from 11 11 1991 because by that date he will attain the age of imprisonment of 60 years. / Sue for permanent injection The plaintiff / applicant's claim that the plaintiff's authority and the trial court's order against this date of birth were valid, but after comparing it with the felony, the trial court filed it with the respondent / plaintiff appeals court below. The decision was rejected in the appeal. The calender with the Christian calendar confirmed the date, as the claimant / applicant claimants were correct, the trial court gave detailed judgment on the matters settled in the case, but the appellate court, in its proper context, discussed the matter. Without having approved the decision. The plaintiff / applicant has sufficient evidence added jobs for fresh advocates from Daulat Pur lawyer