Find a Lawyer

NAZAR MUHAMMAD versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

Section 21 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 94 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Article 152 Appeal, forcibly crossing the transfer limit, dismissed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Court was barred, the High Court remanded the matter to the lower appellate court for the determination of the limitation after the recording of the evidence, after processing the post-remand and recording the evidence, within time. Was found and allowed, judgment was given in favor of pre-emptor judgment and lower appellate court in post-remand proceedings The order passed by the High Court was endorsed by the Pre-emperors, following the lower appellate court's decision in the post-remand proceedings, before the Wende was forcefully appealed by Wendy Palia before the lower appellate court withheld the sanctions. Given and could not be forcibly excluded, the High Court ruled that the application was pending with the Hafizabad copying agency from 11 11 to 1966, therefore, from 23 9 1966 to 3 11 1966. Had to be excluded, the evidence was misinterpreted. A similar finding, it means that the copywriters in Gujranwala had examined the record, that the request was transferred from Gujranwala to Hafizabad which was not extracted from the record / evidence, Prior to this the emperors had failed to include evidence in rejecting the copy report. Agency Hafizabad, on the basis of which the Lower Appellate Court felt the ban on appeal in the first round of litigation, pre-emperors have never been appointed district judges. best advocate from Chitral lawyer