Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus SAKINA BI

In the Capital Development Authority Ordinance 1960 section 28 (iii) and 36 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), the jurisdiction for section 9 compensation was granted to the applicant for the acquisition of the house of the Deputy Commissioner of the Civil Court, in which the defendant Also claimed that he had not entered his share before. The commissioner, who directed him to approach the civil court in this regard, filed the case on both sides, from which the applicant's claim was decided and the trial of the defendants was dismissed by the trial court. , The appellate court rejected defendant's claim and dismissed the applicant's claim. The parties to the distribution of compensation, namely, who was the deputy commissioner to be paid under Section 28 (III) of the Ordinance, were invested in the claimants to decide the question of compensation distribution and this The order of the Commissioner may be punished under Section 36 of the Ordinance. The order will be final. The commissioner will not escape his obligation to decide the question of division of compensation between the parties and transfer it to civil court. Both courts cannot argue with jurisdiction over the distribution of compensation. The jurisdiction was only to see whether the order was approved according to the provisions of the ordinance. Whether or not, there have been no allegations of any violation in the cases filed by both the parties, which the High Court has downplayed both the decisions of the courts and rejected the plates of both parties. It has been stated that the appeal of the defendants will be considered pending before the Commissioner female advocates from Ukba lawyer