Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE

CPC Review O XLVII, R 1 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 185 (3) and 1992 Civil Procedure Code Order XLVII Against Request of Review, Constitutional Request by AKM, Advocate for High Court Filed, argued by SH, MK's Advocate, Advocate and decided on merit. The applicant reviewed the decision on the basis that he was out of the country at the relevant time. That his case was not properly discussed. And since they did not include the MKK, the Advocate High Court rejected the review request. The validity petitioner did not deny his lawyer's signature on MK's lawyer, the advocate petitioner did not initiate any proceedings against the aforesaid lawyer on the allegation of illegal representation, nor did he explain the absence of AKM. Was. The precise order and the sanctity of the high order were linked to strong judicial proceedings on which the constitutional application was filed. The court directed the applicant to submit his original passport to confirm the material dates on which he claimed to be absent from Pakistan, reflecting the British passport that he came to Pakistan on 22nd 1999. , But despite being a bunch of British and Pakistani passports, he could not produce another passport which showed that he was away from the country on 6 1996 1996, which had a history. There is no substance to the petitioner's petition filed by his lawyer that his case was not properly discussed. There can be no basis for reviewing the final decision. tax advocates from Kot Ghulam Mohd lawyer