Find a Lawyer

SHABBIR HUSSAIN versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/CONTROLLING AUTHORITY OF UNION COUNCILS, NAROWAL

Section 9 Limitation Act (1X of 1908), Article 120 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 48 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Chairman of the Part Order for Constitutional Petition, Union Council for implementation of the decree for restoration. Claim of Restoration of Time Limit Challenged in Constitutional Request The Applicant / Respondent's Eligibility Wife contacted the Chairman, Union Council / Respondent with a Restoration Request on 9, 1993, the request by the Chairman, Union Council Two notices were sent to the applicant, which has been disconnected, and it was observed in the order sheet that the applicant filed a notice to the applicant. The Will was not done, after which the previous action was taken and after recording the evidence of the applicant's wife, the Chairman, the Union Council ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 84,000 for the past seven years. For the wife and minor daughter, the applicant's wife filed a 6-petition request for rehabilitation seven years ago / 2 years after the chairman's union council order while her term was clearly six years if three years. When the first application for execution was filed, the execution process was periodically barred when the applicants received notice. Vinay was requested to review the file. Execution proceedings and the Deputy Commissioner took into account the applicant's material ten without having heard that his revision request had proceeded to reject the time limit and on the merit order of the Chairman. Also dismissed the request for review, the union council encountered three legal lacunas; first, the chairman union council property advocate from Shangla lawyer