Find a Lawyer

TAZA GUL AND OTHERS versus HAJI FAZAL SUBHAN

Arts 185 (2) (d) (E) and 185 (3) Rules of the Supreme Court, 1980, O XI, R2 Appeal for leave of appeal, change of direct appeal, delay of ban on judicial error The cost of the case in the case was Rs 6750 but at the time of the suit, the market value of the suit property was more than Rs 50,000, instead of filing an appeal under Article 185 (2) (d) (e) of the Constitution. At the time of filing an appeal under Article 185 (3), the office had not raised any objection to the retention of the application, but after the publication of the Supreme Court judgment in the title of Muhammad Enayat and Fateh Muhammad, 2003 SC R 875 M was reported. , Petitioners filed a petition for leave of appeal under Article 185 (2) (d) (e) of the Constitution, also filed a petition for concession, because on direct appeal The 29-day ban was imposed; no one should be mistaken for the court office entertaining an application for leave to appeal without exception, therefore, a long time bar members Applicants cannot be bothered by misunderstanding of the law and confusion of legal position. female advocates from Vehari lawyer