Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFI versus MUHAMMAD LATIF

Section 11, 115, OI, R 10, O XXI, R 90 & XLI, R 33 Respondents prayed for the distribution of property under management The property was sold in a court auction for non-distribution and the defendants One of them had purchased it, the other respondents had filed an objection, the appeal hearing by the respondents with the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court on 2 6 1988, by the appellate court. It was approved by the court that the respondents of 3 5 1990 filed a petition before the trial court to withdraw their plea hearing, But that was the Appellate Court dismissed by the petitioner. The respondents had not raised any objection to the appeal filed with the other respondents as the trial court could not have filed the petitioner's petition before the petitioner was a party to the civil review. The court, which received the remand of Appellate Court's Appeal Court Order of 3 1990 1990, was finalized between the parties to the trial case, the applicant already in the first phase of the litigation. As the applicant has moved, the trial court may allow the applicant to contest the objection filed by the defendant, the first appellate court having gained broad powers under OXL, R. The CPC, 33, allowed the applicant to contest the objection filed by the participating partners. The courts have erred in law on non-suit applicants on technical grounds, while Mukh advocate for immigration from Bannu lawyer