Find a Lawyer

MST. HAMEEDAN BIBI versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LAHORE

Article 42 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), Revision of the High Court under Section 11, 115 and O II, R2, Section 115, CPC exercise of the principles of the Restoration Judiciary is an application of action against the same party. For this reason, it is the duty of the Duty and the trial court to file the second case. After failing in the Supreme Court, the petitioner submitted that in the first period of the trial, the defendant had hidden a notification, that the trial court's decision was necessary for the trial court to pass. On the basis of the principles of the judgment, the plaintiff was rejected and the order passed by the trial court was upheld by the appellate court, so the matter was adjourned to the court, therefore, the second case was the same subject and relief, section 11 and O II. , Was not workable in view of R 2, in the CPC case the Presiding Officer entertains the matter, It will be prosecuted, therefore, there was no weakness or illegal action in the decisions of the courts below. It is the duty and responsibility of the applicant to indicate whether the decisions of the courts violate any principle of the superior courts. As a result of the incorrect reading or reading of the records of both the above courts, the Supreme Court did not find any deficiency or illegality within the scope of the amended jurisdiction, the strategy was excluded from the review. registration advocate from Nilam lawyer