Find a Lawyer

DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER PAKPATTAN versus SAFDAR ALI

Review of the decision was upheld in Section 114 and AXLVII, R1 Law Reform Ordinance, (XII of 1972), Section 3 intra-court appeal. , The applicant was that although he had not yet accepted the decision of the High Court single judge in the intra-court appeal, which was filed by someone else, he was one of the respondents and before his expulsion. The notice should have been issued or heard. He said that the legality of appeal is not a known principle of law, except that within its limits the respondents need to issue a notice or have been heard where the respondent has a constitutional jurisdiction through a single judge. I was not in the grip of the decision, he cannot object to the dismissal. Intra-Court of Appeals cannot be construed as a grievance, as contemplated by Sections 114 and O XLVII, R1, CPC, so that tuition and lease on the basis of a single judge's decision to maintain review. The decision was made, which made it the final and final rule of Estoppel through a decision or a re-judicial decision not to appeal by the applicant. If a person is a party personally, then the decision of the competent court to decide once or in the same matter between the same party either directly in another court or in another proceeding between the same party. Is. According to the decision of the same court or the rule of estoppel by justice, the party appealing for litigation was bound by the determination made in the present court by a single judge's judicial decision, not apprehended by the applicant. That was it online advocate from Ghizer lawyer