Find a Lawyer

IMRAN AHMAD versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, DERA GH AZI KHAN

The submission of one / third of the sale price for the pre-trial and pre-trial litigation could not have been submitted to the court's boundary duty section 24, 1 / 3rd of the required sale price under the Punjab Pre-Family Act, 1991, The duty of the court was to pass an order. Before assigning any responsibility to the plaintiff court, Section 24 (1) of the said Act was required to pass the order under S / 24 (1) of the Punjab Pre-emptive Act 1991, the day the case was filed by the plaintiff. had gone. The case was approved on the very first day of the Institute of Suits, it was a mistake by the court and earlier in compliance with section (1) of the Act under section 24 (1) of the Punjab Pre-Impression Act, 1991 Was not done It is mandatory for the court to pass an order and set a time to collect the 1 / 3rd sale price. If any money was deposited by the claimant at the appointed time of the court as per the court's order, it could not have been fundamentally appropriate. It was the duty of the court to comply with the provisions of the law and if the litigation was mislead by a court on the basis of misunderstanding, then the legal practitioner was mistaken for assistance by the court. Can't be punished. online advocate from Qambar Shahdatkot lawyer