Find a Lawyer

MST. ROZMAN versus JALALUDDIN

Earlier, the appellant's counsel had obtained a premature order, but was appointed by him, in relation to the questions regarding the implementation of Article 472 and the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 182. During the period, no action was taken to implement the order. About fifteen years after the renovation was approved by Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the petitioner / appellant's predecessor and two other persons were again acquitted in connection with the same land. I had brought a lawsuit which Plaintiff denied. On the basis of the decree, the landowners were allowed in favor of their profession and after dismissing their execution request, the suit was granted to them on the basis of the settlement and the applicants were sent out of the country. Because the land was allowed to cultivate. The parties have to question the issue in which the decree was passed or their representatives, and the matters related to it will be decided by the court, whether it is executed, excluded or satisfied. And the parties will be bound to prosecute the case, the question of execution of the decree was not included, both the subordinate courts were not justified, the applicant took a double stance while applying Section 47, CPC on the dispute. That they have obtained possession of the defendants on the basis of the agreement. And then the matter was handed over to the respondents because the appellants were out of the country. The appellants further claimed that in 1997 they demanded the respondents to seize the suit land which the respondents had given them. immigration advocates phone number from Jehanian lawyer