Find a Lawyer

HAJI GHULAM SARWAR versus HABIBULLAH

Section 5 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), Section 115, O XLI, Rr 4 and 33 pre-arrest whole orders of the NWFP Pre-Emission Act 1987 were challenged in the appeal, of which two vendors / defendants The appellate court had partially excluded the trial. The petitioner has been appealed for non-compliance with the requirements of the student as his notice was issued in the name of the non-appeal defendant, which he received, the High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the plaintiff. Kurdi and the Appellant accepted the acceptance and read XLI, R 4 with R 33, CPC, completely rejected this justification, as the right to liberty is a right to be substituted, non The appeal against the accused cannot be interfered with in the order against which the partner has tiled. The dismissal record did not show that the non-appellant in the review petition filed by the co-defendant had made an oral or written request that the decree passed by the appellate court be set aside because it had made the plaintiff's land. Does not want to allow 2/2 share. The absence of a non-Appellant respondent to challenge the order in the appeal will be a part of the agreement in which the High Court did not, in its sole discretion, grant the plaintiff a 2/2 share of the land. O LXI, R 4; The CPC correctly and judiciously located the lower courts on the receipt of the notice by the non-appellant defendants and addressed it, while they were on record. The Supreme Court accepted the appeals while retaining this decision. immigration advocate from Trinda Mohd Pannah lawyer