Sections 15 and 21 (3) Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXLI, R27 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Application for eviction of additional evidence at the Appeal Stage The tenant's argument was that the appellate court and the High Court had erred in not properly considering the application under OXLI, R-27, with the CPC pursuing section 21 (3) of the Sindh Rated Premises Ordinance 1979. Under which the landlords affirmed to give the tenants the shops and thus acted illegally and the courts below could not consider the matter in their proper context. That is, because the homeowner's withdrawal request with good faith business purpose was not his personal needs. The petitioner and the evidence included was not sufficient to show that the writ petition filed by the tenant is not specified by the Jyoti Memo High Court, petitions regarding the application under A XLI, R 27, CP. Therefore, the High Court did not properly consider this aspect of the tenancy in this case; at such a deserted stage, the petition could not be allowed to be taken before the Supreme Court, which would have allowed the Appellate Court and the High Court to grant leave. The court's request was not seriously aggravated. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the High Court decision
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
