Find a Lawyer

RAZA MUHAMMAD versus JAVED KHAN

Section 8 The suit for deposition on immovable property by the Revenue Officer of the local commission deputed by the Sope Property Court was dismissed by the trial court, but the appellate court remanded it to the suit by the Revenue Officer. ? The place of validity was set for the spot inspection during the trial, which submitted its report, but the trial court ruled that the dispute suit between the parties was within the bounds of the property, and the breach was determined by the trial court's determination of revenue. This can be solved by the officer. Appointment of another local commission was required to confirm the disputes over the disputed property The trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly and dismissed the case as invalid and unlawful for no good and reasonable purpose. Under which a joint heritage / partner was sued for possession by the partner. It is considered by or for the appellate court that none of the other heirs / co-partners had made any mistake while limiting the suit property from the merit officer while remanding the present matter was necessary because of the circumstances. The review was deleted

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA v. ABDUL ALI 2015 MLD 157
• ABDUL KHANAN v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2015 PLC(CS) 159
• ABDUL QAYYUM v. Mst. ASMA EJAZ 2015 CLC 162
• GOHAR AYUB v. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ 2015 YLR 163
• GHAFFAR ALI v. State 2015 PCrLJ 169
• BAZAR GUL AFRIDI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Defence, Islamabad 2015 PLD 169
• SAMI ULLAH KHAN v. Sheikh TAJ MUHAMMAD 2015 PLD 175
• MUHAMMAD UMAR v. State 2015 MLD 181

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

best advocate from Thul lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes