Find a Lawyer

KULSOOM BANO versus ADAM

Section 12 (2) and O. XVII, R3 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 8 and 54 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 of the Constitution, seizure of a permanent injunction and fraudulent trial for lucrative profit and Evidence of misrepresentation The respondents, the landlord's homeowner asked the applicant to vacate the house, but the applicant not only refused to vacate the house, also filed a lawsuit against the defendant, who, through a trial, XVII, rejected under R 3, the CPC respondent also filed a case against him. The applicant did not file any appeal against the property, permanent injunction and lucrative profit case which was decided by the trial court petition and was approved against him in any of the injunction and instead 12 (2), an application was filed under CPC which was also dismissed. The review filed by the petitioner by the trial court and against the trial court's decision was also excluded on the basis of limiting the applicability of the petitioner as no plausible explanation was presented. And why the appeals against the order were not filed under section 12 (2), the CPC should not be transferred as an alternative to the appeal when the applicant is proceeding before the trial court of the trial. I used to be very biased. The case was not that they were not served or that the judgment and decree was obtained by the applicants against the judgment and decree of the court and judgment and order was not enforceable, It will be deleted immigration advocates phone number from Sita Road lawyer