Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE versus SAEED AKTHAR

Under section 115, 12 (2), 104 and O XLIII, R1 application section 12 (2), the CPC was dismissed for non-prosecution, the rehabilitation application was also dismissed, the petitioner. The trial court appeals against the dismissal order approved by the court. The Appeal was Not Enforceable The applicant requested to change the appeal, but the petitioner's request was not postponed, even though the trial court's decision was also invalid, verification was not authorized. The application for dismissal of the petition was dismissed as such a dismissal order could not be disclosed under Section 12 (2), CPC, section 104, CPC issued by OXLIII, R1, CPC. Because the appeal was only against the order denying the restoration of the case and not the appellate court's request. To that extent was correct, but the order of the appellate court under which the petitioner's request for a change of review was dismissed could not be submitted to the trial court's review of the wrong decision, invalid and therefore It can be ruled out that the right to exercise the jurisdiction of the amendment was not a privilege, as the most valuable right should be appealed to the Court of Appeal and then decide whether it should Before the order is interfered with or the appellate court is not seeking that the wrong decision of the court below be not subject to review He was, it was considered baseless order, being not durable Appellate Court, High Court reviewed the appeal filed before the appeal court had set aside the review with direction online advocate from Gilgit lawyer