MUHAMMAD MEER HABIB versus MIRZA RAFI-UZ-ZAMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, ISLAMABAD
Article 5 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application barred the petitioner from time to time, which was periodically barred by the applicant, was delayed by the applicant but the petition for delay was granted. The delay was not delayed by the appellate. The court and its appeal were rejected on time, rejecting that the applicant's position was that the appellate court erroneously dismissed the appeal because, with time restriction, the final appellate court in this case Had considered all aspects of the matter in reaching the conclusion. When the time to reach the relevant forum is over, each day's delay needs clarification on what is considered valuable rights - in favor of the other side. , The dismissal of the contempt of court does not guarantee interference with arbitrary use of the limits by the appellate court. In the writ jurisdiction by the High Court when no commitments were made to commit any illegal act, nothing was recorded to prove that the counsel for the appellant was ill at the time of delay and on time. Appeal was not in a position to file. Applicant (applicant) did not benefit from mere solicitation of lawyer or solicitor of the solicitor; there is no such explanation for delayed concession; the lower court dismissed any appeal in dismissing the appeal. Didn't commit the move. On the other side of the matter, \ r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
