Find a Lawyer

HAKAM versus TASSADAQ HUSSAIN SHAH

Paragraphs 27, 3, 22, 7, 8, 13, 17 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 9 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), Section 42 of the Suite of Edna Property Declaration and Permanent Prohibition on the basis of jurisdiction Civil Court scope for property Plaintiffs / applicants filed suit and claim for permanent injunction, claiming to own suit land \ Edna Malik \ Trial Court on appeal filed against the defendant, Appellate Court filed M Paragraph 27 of LR dismissed the case. No Civil Court, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to prosecute the matter. The plaintiffs contend that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the title according to the property and pursuant to the MLR No. of 27 Neither I nor the plaintiff's defendants' arguments nor its status. The plaintiff, whose title was not issued and under paragraphs 3, 22 and 27 of MLR No. 64, was the Land Reform Authorities that had jurisdiction to decide the matter under the section. The CPC, the civil courts, were the courts of ultimate jurisdiction, excluding all cases of civil nature for which their cognizance was either expressly or implicitly barred by the MLR number. Under para, 27 of 64, the civil court had no jurisdiction nor had to determine it. None of the provisions of paragraph 27 of MLR No. 64 or any of the rules made under it were challenged by the illegality, in the present case the civil paragraph 27 of MLR No. 64 was challenged. Under Para 27 no rule or order of MLR No. 64 was challenged. Commission or credit attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Dhoun Kal lawyer