Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus MUHAMMAD LATIF

O II, R 2, O VI, R 17, O VII, R 11 & O XXIII, R 1 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 54 and 55 for the permanent and mandatory injunction against the plaintiff's dismissal Claim has been filed. For the same reason the case filed by the plaintiff was withdrawn and the present trial was dismissed, the trial was dismissed under O VII, R 11 CPC appeals court. The plaintiff's appeal was accepted and the trial court granted the trial. Since the plaintiff withdrew his case with permission to file a case, the appellate court justified the trial court's denial, if the trial of both cases was put on Friday, the trial court O VII, R 11 filed by the defendants, was not allowed to accept the application under CPC, the reason for the proceedings relating to the plaintiff's litigation was repeated, therefore, O II, R 2, O VI, R 17 and O XXIII, R 1 CPC provisions were not attracted Check the contents of the plaintiff when deciding the application under O VII, 11 11 CPC filed by the defendants The rejection of Ai, was not verified by the acts and documents written statement, disputed facts and issues about the complainant were not set. He was given no opportunity to prove his case. Such a trial by the trial court was unlawful to condemn the plaintiff, therefore, the appellate court's decision did not find any deficiency and illegality. immigration advocate from Babri Banda lawyer