Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN

Articles 185 (2) (d) (E) and 185 (3) of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), sections 42 and 54, apply for leave to appeal in direct appeal at the time of filing exchange rules Not to raise objections The trial court's hearing of the petition filed by the defendants was dismissed by the trial court, but the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decided the case and ruled in the lower appellate court's jurisdiction. High Court Separates, Appeals For Leave to Appeal Before Decisions and Decisions Approved by High Courts in High Court 21 and 2005 Appeal was processed on 25 4 2006, after the plaintiffs had applied for leave to appeal in direct appeal, the petition filed by the plaintiffs was that the application was filed within it. Was done The time and the office accepted the request without any objection to its restoration. Remaining on the shoulders of the office, there was good reason for the delay, which led to the request to be converted into a direct appeal. The Supreme Court found that such an appeal could result in a leave of appeal. There is a shortage of request for application exchange. An unusual delay was filed on 25 4 2006 while the leave application for appeal was filed on 21 10 2005. This negligence and negligence on the part of Article 185 of the Constitution was not a gross mistake, misunderstanding or misunderstanding. Instead of filing an appeal, an appeal was filed for leave under which the legal remedy against the judgment under appeal was not obtained. top advocate from Samundri lawyer