Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD USMAN versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

For the 12-2 and 0 1, R-10 Special Relief Act (of 1877), for sale-contract possession during the passage of the Section 12 suit, an R has claimed that he, as a party, Purchase of suit property upon request to implement. The land they had acquired in suit property and possession was handed over to them. The plaintiff had made a confessional statement in favor of the plaintiff prior to the decision of such application, but the trial court dismissed the petitioner on 166 1985 and dismissed the case on 16 6. Defendant's statement was recorded in 1985 and Appellate Court R challenged this decree on the basis of fraud by application under Section 12 (2), CPC, which was accepted by the appellate court. And that order was set aside under the jurisdiction. At the time of the dismissal of the trial of the suit trial court on 15, 1985, the decision was not passed on the order of R to decide the miscellaneous application filed by the parties. The appeal was filed on 15 6 1985 and on the next date, ie, 16 6 1985, a decree was obtained from the Appellate Court in a clear manner and only to frustrate the right of RK to decide the petition. There was no party to the story. Sue, but he may file an application under section 12 (2), the CPC appellate court in the circumstances committed a material misconduct or legal jurisdiction to accept the application under section 12 (2) under the CPC Did not top civil advocates from Hala lawyer