Find a Lawyer

IFTIKHARUL HAQ versus DISTRICT CANAL OFFICER

Sections 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. VII, R 11 & O XXXIX, R 1 & 27 decide on the application for interim injunction on a case other than the plaintiff's trial during the trial. Rejecting the interim order. , Keeping in mind any material other than the plaintiff and dismissing the plaintiff under O. VII, the R 11 CPC order which was passed by the trial court was not retained by the appellate court, nor was temporary. As such, the plaintiff cannot be dismissed by the decision of the petitioner or the trial court. The plaintiff may hold material other than the contents of the plaintiff or material produced by the plaintiff facts which are required to be proved by the plaintiff in order to obtain a temporary injunction at trial, the trial court's contents Was not mentioned. Appellate court ruled in this case, holding that foreign material as well as facts which could be proved only after the recording of the evidence was not a violation of the provisions of law of both the courts. As contained in the OVII, RI L CPC, they were also in violation of the law announced by the Supreme Court High Court. It is noted with concern that a common trend has arisen in the trial court and even in the lower appellate courts in affirming the trial court's order to dismiss the case, while temporarily insulting the delivery of the OVII expression. Deciding to apply for a restraining order, the R II CPC High Court directed that such subordinate courts cause illegal orders. law websites from Ahmed pur Sial lawyer