Find a Lawyer

UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB, LAHORE THROUGH VICE-CHANCELLOR versus PROF. DR. MAJID NAEEM

Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), VIII, R11 (d) of the University of Punjab Act (IX of 1973), the declaration of section 48A suit and the dismissal of the defendants for damages on the grounds of O VII, R 11 The application was moved under. (D), the CPC rejected the ban of the petitioner of section 48A of the Punjab Act, 1973, saying that full jurisdiction is a matter of abolishing the jurisdiction of the courts, in which case the plaintiff was sued. Have made serious allegations of baseless and controversial accusations. The facts, which had to be examined by the evidence, were not a simple declaration by the plaintiff challenging the dismissal of the suit, but compensation was sought for damages, which also required proof. To seek the provisions of VII, R 11 (d), by any law the content of the plaintiff must appear from the contents of the plaintiff, this allegation was not absolute by the defendants and By avoiding the use of power by force, the attack under the 518A of the University of Punjab Act 1973 will eliminate the feeling of immunity, In this case the plaintiff had sustained an exception or not, this can only be determined after checking the evidence, the trial court, the circumstances, was correct to reject the application. A VII, R 11, CPC must evaluate the evidence and inquiry in this case. best advocate from Bhakkar lawyer