Find a Lawyer

TAJ MOHAMMAD versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA

On the remand of Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXX, R5 and O XLI, R 25, and section 115 suit, both the courts had concurrently rejected the concurrent findings of fact by the above courts. Accurate definition of the evidence, which sought the intervention of the High Court in its review jurisdiction due to lack of applicant practices and did not incite confidence, on the contrary, to dismiss the defendants' claim. Sufficient content was brought on the record by the respondents for. The applicant states that the respondents were subjected to contradictions and millions of proofs, without any positive effort to prove their conviction, did not produce any conclusions. The evidence on record revealed that the applicant in the year 1992. An electrical meter was installed at the residence of the applicant and the applicant failed to pay the dues from January 1994 to May 2000. He was not ready to discharge his obligation and pay the arrears of electricity bills. Appellant appears to have prolonged the stay and avoided payment as long as possible. The court failed to record the judgment case separately in accordance with O's requirements. XX, R 5, CPC and in the circumstances were appropriate for remand under O XLI, R 25, CPC was canceled from Order XX, R 5, CPC applied to the original court, which sought to find a hearing The trial was not required by the appellate court as needed and was sufficient for the appellate court to deal with all matters which were settled by the appellate court to resolve disputes without exception. law firms from Panjgur lawyer