Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ANAYAT KHAN versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD ILTAF KHAN

Section 14 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VII of 1974), before the eligibility of Section 42 High Court, the Appeal of the Supreme Court not to impose the Controller Controller as a party in the line of respondents, without action. Except, for the respondents who had passed the order against a party in the line, it was not a basic order that it was approved by the current controller. An essential party and the line of respondents as a party was not satisfactory without cleanliness in its rows. The appellate court did not approve the original order passed by the rent controller in the existing party controlling the rent. Was an essential party in this case nothing illegal was found. The order passed by the High Court tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the Deed to the landlord within the specified period for the landlord. It was directed that the appeal be dismissed in circumstances till the damaged premises are evacuated. And.

Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2015

• SHAHID HUSSAIN MALIK v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2015 PLC(CS) 102
• SHAUKAT AZIZ v. ANSAR ALI 2015 PCrLJ 134
• Mst. AMREEN v. MUHAMMAD KABIR 2015 YLR 170
• Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABID v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2015 PLC(CS) 232
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR v. JAVED ANWAR 2015 PLC(CS) 354
• ABDUL LATIF KHAN v. NAZIRAN BEGUM 2015 YLR 427
• Syed NAZIR AHMED SHAH GILLANI v. Syeda NAZIA GILLANI 2015 MLD 443
• ALI HAIDER v. Syed MUHAMMAD ASGHAR SHAH 2015 YLR 511

All Supreme Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2015 →

famous lower court advocate from Chohar Jamali lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes