Find a Lawyer

TAYAB versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ

Applicants of Sections 12 (2), 96 and 115 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Administration of Justice of Relief, rejected the petition under Section 12 (2), CPC before the Appellate Court against section 96 , Had filed an appeal under CPC, which was dismissed by the applicants. Argued that if the appeal was not admissible against the order of dismissal, this objection could have been raised by the Court of Appeal, so that they could amend their appeal and convert it into a review, wherever possible and with concrete justice. Should be avoided. Be done with the parties and for this purpose even if no prayer has been made by any party, the court can shield the prayer itself and if it is considered according to the facts and circumstances of a case. Could allow relief when the appeal was filed by the applicants, it was the duty of the appellate court to see if the appeal was enforceable and if it was not manageable, it should have raised the objection. Beneficiaries can take advantage of opportunities to correct mistakes and pursue appropriate treatment, and the Appellate Forum has discharged its duties according to the law. That yogurt was pulled before the outcome of the applicants lawyer, which resulted in the existence of the applicants. A difficult situation is where the High Court must come to their aid in exercising their constitutional jurisdiction, which will face failure. The High Court directed the appellate court to submit the appeal filed by the applicants as a review and allow a hearing accordingly. top advocate from Narowal lawyer