Constitutional Pakistan 1973 Article 199 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXXI, R 98 and Section 47 Constitutional application The question of fact as a result of the High Court's jurisdiction under the jurisdiction of the courts to deliver disputed findings of fact To interfere with Constitutional Jurisdiction Scope Objection During the proceedings executed by the applicant it was claimed that the property was owned and possessed. The defendant has raised the objection that since he is not a party to the withdrawal proceedings, the order of withdrawal cannot be executed against him. Both courts have, finally, exercised constitutional jurisdiction. Dismissed and it was decided in favor of the applicants that the High Court could not resolve the disputed questions of fact. The questions raised in the petition for justification under Article 199 of the Constitution were primarily questions of fact, and both the courts below had also properly resolved them. The High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction sought unity of facts. I cannot interfere which is supported by the evidence of the record. The High Court was within its constitutional jurisdiction. Seeing that the court or tribunal had jurisdiction over the same judgment before the issue and that they did not exceed the legal jurisdiction, the appellate court in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court Could not work, after which both courts are justified. Definition of evidence dismissed the request for objection, therefore, in the circumstances of such decisions
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
