Find a Lawyer

MISKIN versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANSEHRA

Filing a case under the Special Relief Act 1877, Section 42 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 92 and O. VII, R11 Plain, Section 92 of the Public Charities, CPC Regarding the administration. The land adjoining the same plaintiff claimed to be the mausoleum of the shrine and that the defendants had nothing to do with the administration and, under VIII, R11, the CPC on behalf of the defendants. It was filed that the matter was related to public welfare and was not filed after obtaining the permit as per the requirement under section under under under. The CPC trial court rejected the request but the appellate court amended the jurisdiction. I allowed the application while I was living and the plaintiff rejected the constitutional application against this decision. The appellate court was dismissed by the High Court. For his personal rights and stats and permanent orders, the "scandal" of the shrine and the "burdens" of the shrine was not stated anywhere that there was any trust, or any breach of trust, for public or religious purposes. Was violated. Or that it was transferred to the court seeking the direction of its administration, the first prerequisites for filing a case under Section 92, CPC, are that it should not be in the capacity of the representative on behalf of the public That for the benefit of an individual where none of the prior conditions was established, the case was not barred by the law. The plaintiff failed to state that any clause of O VII, R 11, CPC. Since the suit was targeted, both courts have settled their jurisdiction jobs for advocates from FR Tank / DI Khan lawyer