Find a Lawyer

MST. SHAMIM ASHFAQ versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ

Civil Procedure Code Order II, R2 and O VII, R11 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 42 and 54 of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance (VI of 1979), Sections 7 and 16 of Suite O II Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979, O. II, in the previous case in Reglin 13, R2, CPC, applied for the declaration and identified the reasons for the continued prosecution that the accused have been accused of. Damaged and blocked the partition wall, breaking down adjacent house construction. In the earlier case, the plaintiff had also mentioned the passing of his house that there were apparently plans to lift the upper building on the adjacent plot, after finding out about the approval of the tallest building, Karachi Building. A second lawsuit was filed against the defendants by adding control. The Authority seeks relief in the form of a plaintiff and in the form of an injunction Defendants have objected to the prohibition by the second case O II, R2, CPC, and demanded the dismissal of the plaintiff under OVII, In R 11 (d), in another case, the case of the CPC Waldetti plaintiff was that the construction of the high-rise building was contrary to the rules and regulations, against the Karachi Building Control Authority, which was accused of violating the rules. In the first case there was no party, the charges of restraining it and the other facilities may be somewhat common, but the proceedings in both suits were not sufficient. The evidence was clear because the test of evidence required to prove a contentious issue would be different in many cases, because the set of evidence was different, it could not be contested. That is a common cause of action online advocate from Ratto Dero lawyer