MUHAMMAD HUSNAIN versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN
The Section,, &, and Pro Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), Section 417 of the Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 of the Order was passed under the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005 Complaint regarding such scope was accepted. Constitutional application filed by the accused (appellants) challenging the trial court's order by the trial court, an appeal dismissed by the High Court intra-court, the appeal filed by the complainant complaining that the trial court's order Is worth hearing, thus the intra-court appeal will not be heard. Appeal and revision rights for exclusion of a constitutional application filed by the accused were construed as a law where the special law gave rise to a statutory right, but did not grant the right of appeal and the ordinary courts to decide that right If eligible, then the rules of the general rule are applied in such courts and if allowed under such rules, the appeal will be false. The Sessions Court, under the Acquisition Act, 2005, has ruled. Using the powers, served as a general court, not as a special court rule, as the Criminal Code, 1898 Including the right to take and review, which will be applied to the court complaint. Under the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005, the word appeal will include criminal procedure, appeal 1898, was applied to action under section 9 of the Act under the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005, thus, the appeal And the right to review was against the existing orders. Unlawful Dispossession Act, 2005
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
