Find a Lawyer

FAZAL KARIM versus FATEH BEGUM

A. XXXIX, Rr 1, 2 (3) and O XLIII, R 1 (2) temporarily barred the order, granting the claimant a request for infringement by transfer under his claim separating the defendant from the suit property. There was a case to stop it from happening but it was allowed to complete its work. Placing Little at his own cost and risk, the construction work was filed by the trial court's order before the Plaintiff's Appellate Court, which on the same day, the trial court's pending trial court's order dismissing the proceedings, the plaintiff said in the O.L. XXX, R2 (3), filed a case under CPC to begin the proceedings against the order passed by the trial court. The defendant, on the basis that he knew of the suspension order through the appellate court, deliberately completed his construction work and thus violated the order to impose himself on the defendant. Has denied the allegations under which the suspended order was upheld by the trial court. , The appellate court held no injunction in the case which did not prevent the construction of the suit on any property, O XXXX, R2 (3), under the provisions of CPC The question of prosecution does not arise, the plaintiff could not say. That the suspension of the trial court's order by the appellate court prevented the defendant from increasing the construction did not guarantee proceedings under OXXIX, R 2 (3), CPC, in the absence of any binding order. But other orders will take effect after it is approved. Parties who were ordered to suspend Pakistan, top advocate family court from Yazman Mandi lawyer