Find a Lawyer

MRS. NAJMA QAZI versus QAZI ABDUL HAKEEM

Sections 8 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 115, 12 (1), 151, O II, R2 and OVII, R11 Suits, Permanent Order for Possession and Distribution Case by Trial Court Denied. The plaintiff had no cause for action and the matter was restrained under the provisions of Sections II, R 2 and Section 12 (1), filed by the plaintiff against the decision of the trial by the CPC. The court was excluded from the cases on which the trial took place. The plaintiff was allowed to sue for possession, so the appellate court's review of the improper decision was that the appeal filed by the plaintiff was withheld over time, and that the appellate court When the plaintiff was allowed to sue for ownership, he practically took action. The Appellate Court found that the appellate court would be a High Court due to simple possession, both illegally and with jurisdiction unlawful and in complete disregard of the parties' requests. Dee sets up a different case for the plaintiff that was never considered by him, in addition, the appellate court allowed the plaintiff to file a lawsuit for ownership and, when necessary, to the plaintiff. Was given an unlimited period of time to take advantage of the process of occupation, which was not lawful. The High Court had put aside the order for violating the law and contradicting the settled law. law websites from Tibba Sultanpur lawyer