Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus GHULAM ALI

Articles 12 (2), 115 and A III, R4 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), sections 8 and 42 of suit and claim of fraud and misrepresentation were decided by the trial court and the defendant During the appeal filed the appeal was filed by the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff in which an offer was made by the plaintiff's general attorney for the plaintiff presented by his lawyer or his son's lawyer. Motion was made, the plaintiff and his lawyer accepted and based on that offer and the required statement of acceptance of the oath was given and the appellate court has stayed for more than twenty years On the basis of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of sudden sleepiness, the appellant's decision was challenged by filing an application under section 12 (2). On this basis, the CPC made this claim with fraud and misrepresentation; a review order was filed by the appellate court against the plaintiff in the order dismissing the appeal. The petition, filed under section 12 (2), did not deny the appointment of a lawyer to be presented by the plaintiff before the appellate court below, nor did it impose any collusion or illegal liability. Was designated as a lawyer and neither was the appointment of a lawyer. The disclaimer offered by the judicial motion was revoked or canceled, stating that the lawyer appropriately appointed by the plaintiff was not only legal but was also binding on the applicant, Appellate Court, Section 12 below. (2) The right under the CPC was to dismiss the application or retain the parties. More than two decades have passed to the plaintiff in a regular case advocate for immigration from Jalozai lawyer