Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF versus SAHIB JAN

A IX, R 13 and Section 115 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 42 and 54 amending the scope of the preceding injunction, the declaration dated 23 6 2001, and setting aside the suit for a permanent injunction pending trial. The previous trial was adjourned. Respondent filed two petitions for orders dated 6 7 2001, under which the trial court, while setting aside the previous order and preparation of documents, etc., said that the two petitions approved the ex parte decree 6 7 2001. Approved a request to separate the former party. The trial court rejected the order and the ex-parte order with the observation that a telegram was received by the defendant's lawyer regarding the postponement of 23 6 2001, but because the former party order had already been approved and 6 7 2001 The case for the orders was settled, but no application was filed during the intervention period, ie, until the ex parte decree was issued, which called for a retraction of the ex parte order. There was a lack of interest in the matter. The NT, therefore, rejected the request made in the telegram, which resulted in the appellate court approving the request and invalidating the previous order and the previous order. To refuse to put the former party order and the ex parte order aside is extremely unfair, unfair and incompetent simply because during the intervention period, i.e. before the previous party order was approved, the former party order was separated. The application for was not filed and especially because the first case was decided on 23 6 2001 for the evidence of the defendant. property advocate from Sita Road lawyer