Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YASIN versus MUHAMMAD AMIN

A. XLVII, R1 and O VII, Rr 11, 12 Review The judgment and order of partial permission granted to appeal partly from the High Court's dismissal was sought on the basis that, in an unknown decision, the trial court Directed to pay a court fee of Rs 15,000. On a particular date and since the said court fee was not paid till that date, the plaintiff was dismissed under O. VII, R 11, the CPC is invalidating the appeal that the High Court has given notice of fact. Did not show on his face. The record, which constitutes an error in the sense of O XLVII, R 1, CPC, which requires review of the judgment approved under O VII, R 11, CPC, and the non-compliance with the order of the plaintiff, Order VII, R 12 is not equivalent to a CPC rejection. The mandatory stipulation was that the court had to pass an order denying the plaintiff and citing its reasons, which was not possible for the trial court because after finally hearing the verdict and dismissing the case. The court became the Facts Officer Judge and the trial court. Even the court did not provide the results for the fee payment directive by the appellant to comply with the aforesaid order for payment of the court fee, and the trial court's order not to be subject to review, dismissed. criminal advocate from Poonch lawyer