KARACHI PLAY HOUSE versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT
OI, R 10 (2) Appeal to the appropriate party, the claimant in the public interest, joining the defendant, in the public interest, the position of the appellants on which they are extending the construction, the complainant of the intervener was that the appellants. Changed the use of controversial plots. Separate action was being taken against them. Plaintiffs raised by the appellant that the interlocutor was not a party required to join the appeal while the interlocutor was resisting lifting the construction on the plot in the dispute, unless there was a change in its use. ? The plan was resolved by the government, the interlocutor was allowed to join the court so that the party interfering with the appeal was not a necessary party in the matter but it was a proper party whose presence the court It will help to make a complete decision on the relevant questions. And the intervener was prepared in a more comprehensive way because the applicants were allowed in the appeal
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
online advocate from Mohen Jo Daro lawyer
