Find a Lawyer

FATEH MUHAMMAD NAEEM versus MST. IMAM SAIN

OX, R 4 & O, XVII, Rr 2 & 3 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application was allowed to restore the dismissal of the non-production of evidence that the trial court had granted What was after the hearing. The function became opioid, and, therefore, there was no jurisdiction to recover the case, the trial court found in its error that it proceeded to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. And for that reason, when the plaintiff moved. The request for restitution of the case, which was a material review request, testified to the fact that the review request for the restitution was not titled as a review request and that the court also passed the review provisions at the time the order was passed. Was not taken into account, she would not comply. The great difference is that citing a wrong clause will not preclude a party from providing the correct relief which the Court was obliged to give, although there were sufficient reasons to reflect that it had the power to conduct its review. But has undoubtedly maintained legality that the court function was not opioid, but rather retained its authority to revoke its prior order under the OO, XVII, R3CPC plaintiff. The matter, the constitutional application was accepted with costs top advocates from Rahimyar Khan lawyer