Find a Lawyer

AHMAD SHER AND OTHERS versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT

Prior to the discharge of judgment before the date of section 21 Punjab Pre-Emission Act (IX of 1991), section 35 constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), the preceding order dated 15 12 1973 under the previous order. Was canceled by At the request of the shopkeepers, the ex parte decree was set aside and after the trial, the trial court dismissed the suit judge and the order passed by the trial court was upheld by the appellate court, but the superior court Had set aside all the concurrent decisions made in the exercise of the amended jurisdiction. It was ordered in the favor of the emperor Playa presented by the following courts and vendors that there was no injunction in favor of the pre-emptor before the date of the deduction, ie, 31 198 1986, as it was held by the trial court itself. Was right There was no difference between the same party ruling that was set aside by the same court and the High Court set aside, because the effect of both the decrees was the same, it was not necessary that such ex parte or contested. The decree must be declared compulsory. 31 7 The preceding order up to 1986 was a decree that had all intents and purposes. Previously on December 12, 1973, the previous decree had already received a previous order, irrespective of the fact that such a decree was once revoked. Received prior to the target's date, it eliminated the misconduct involved; therefore, the emperor could not be sued for non-performance of the student, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere in the High Court's decision. , The appeal was denied. ask a advocate free from Shikarpur lawyer