Paras 3, 6 (6) and 27 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Article 9 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the Martial Law Regulation 1959, subsection holding subsidiary of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 Impressed. The decision on the cancellation of the owner, the authority, was sold to the respondents to the civil court's disputed property and the sale was approved by the Revenue Authorities to review the sale mutation on the basis that after the sale, the owner's remaining land Sub-holdings went down. The owner transferred the land in favor of the applicant through gift modification due to lack of jurisdiction and the order passed by the trial court was upheld by the appellate court and the second appeal was also decided by the applicant. That the trial court could have adjourned the case instead of dismissing the case and referring the applicant to transfer to Tland. Chiefland Commissioner Failure Applicants failed to show that civil courts could have jurisdiction. To determine the question as to whether this transaction was affected by Martial Law Regulation No. 64 or to authorize the contempt of the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64, the jurisdiction of the Land Commission or Land Commissioners and Civil Courts I was not. The clearly excluded Land Commission was the final judge to decide the question of a transaction affected by the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 38, which was not subject to any legal weakness so that the Supreme Court To request an intervention by. Appeal leave denied
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
