Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD. BASHIR KHAN versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL

O XXIII, R 1 & O VII, R 11 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 42 and 54 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 42 Declaration of Suits Declaration and Permanent Order The pending trial for the plaintiff for the injunction against the plaintiff filed another suit for the declaration, in the same court against the same defendant and others, the plaintiff raised the objection that the case subsequently filed by the plaintiff, O Under XXIII, which was not applicable, both the trial court and the appellate court under sub-rule (1) (3) of R1 rejected the defendant's objection under OI VII, R 11, CPC. To do The service, to reverse the roles of the C 1 to C rolls on the second appeal (1) (2). Following the objections, the decisions and orders of the courts were raised that the case filed by the plaintiffs could not be retained under sub-rules (1) and (3) of O1 XIII, R1, as the previous plaintiff had filed the case. Was withdrawn without permission and then said. The suit was dismissed pursuant to section XXIII, R1, CPC, and the High Court ordered the reinstatement of the previous case, without any legal authority, and the plaintiff was allowed to amend the case on a permissible basis. Only the latest suit was banned, which was filed after the return of a previous lawsuit. The case that was filed and pending at the time of filing the latest case was not filed after withdrawal because, apart from identifying the reasons and parties for the proceedings, the relief sought in the two suits separately. , Which contains the bar AXXIII, R 1, CPC will not apply if the court is allowed to file a fresh case list of advocates from Tharparkar lawyer