Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SABIR versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN

Rule 9, 11 and O1, R10 (2) of the Civil Code, 1908, Section 42 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 42, rules for the judiciary to recover money in respect of Madinah's income. As a plaintiff, the defendants resisted the defendant on the basis that the doctrine of the judiciary and the shrine, which was a necessary party, fell into disuse because one of the defendants In the previous case it was passed in favor of the plaintiff / appellant. The parties related to the case filed a share of the income between the period 279 1987 to the date of the institute suit 309 1990, the trial court's decision of the plaintiff in the subsequent case between 1390 1990 to 31 12 1995. The claim and the dispute between the parties in the subsequent suit was not a significant issue in the previous suit, nor was there a reason for the plaintiff's claim for money at the time of the previous suit. The reasons for the proceedings in the subsequent case arose after the judgment was passed in the previous case. By the way, the principle of the race judiciary was, thus, that there was no application in the subsequent case to exclude or abandon a point which was not possible in the future by the plaintiff in the previous case. The objection could not be made in connection with the execution of the shrine as the defendants were also suspended because there was money in the dispute. Defendants and responsibility to guard Mazar recovered from the parties themselves did not have to pay anything for the pilgrimage, the conditions patent advocate from Chowk Maitla lawyer