Find a Lawyer

SAEED AHMED versus CANTONMENT BOARD, MALIR CANTT

Section 273 Central Government Land and Buildings (Recovery of Occupation) Ordinance (LIV of 1965), Sections 5 (1), 3, 10 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A. XXXX, R1 Section Central Government Land and Buildings (Recovery of Occupation) Ordinance, 1965 mandatory order for restoration of occupation was prohibited and the order prohibiting the plaintiff from operating and operating petrol pumps was prohibited. The contention was that the Cantonment Board could not claim any protection under section 273. , The Cantonment Act, 1924, defendant claimed that the trial was stopped under section 273. Any notice under Section 273 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 under section 5, 10 and 11 of the Central Government's Land and Buildings (Recovery) Ordinance, 1965, as stated, under it And, therefore, was unable to maintain the case and that the Cantonment Board had acted in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, 1965, of the public lands and buildings, so that section 10 and Under 11, the matter was banned. The ordinance was affirmed, rightly the Cantonment Board had acted inactive. Due to the powers conferred under Section 5 (1) of the Central Government Land and Buildings Ordinance, 1965, section 273 of the Notice of Cantonment Act 1924 cannot be allowed to use the legal shield. Is. The suit was specifically sent under section 2 73 (4) of the Cantonment Act, 1924, for the exception, because, by giving notice or adjournment of the matter, it would defeat the case, Therefore patent advocate from Haripur lawyer