Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKBAR THROUGH L.RS. versus MAJOR TAJJUDDIN THROUGH L.RS.

Section 144 and O IX, R 13 Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O XXVIII, R 3 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article L85 (3) Ex-parte Remarks on Violation, Ex parte The decree was passed in favor of the plaintiffs, which, on the eve of the proceedings of the High Court decree, the plaintiffs implemented the decision, preventing the execution of the order passed by the High Court. Therefore, the defendants temporarily called for a restraining order against the restoration of the occupation, which relieved them, as well as being denied by the three courts, which were properly reduced. Claimants had occupied the land suit in December 1981, the fourth quarter despite the fact that nearly a century old, former reporter under which the order was made, was placed on one side almost almost. Seventeen years of age and three courts simultaneously found that the plaintiff was not entitled to retain his possession, he was still not satisfied and had approached the Supreme Court. In concurring results, the plaintiff cannot identify any weakness in the concurrent results of the three courts. Court Rules, 1980, since the application was unreasonable and it only filed to extend the plaintiff's torture, and the time of the Supreme Court was dismissed and the appeal was denied. top advocates from Pir Mahal lawyer