AHMAD YAR versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PAKPATTAN SHARIF
The Appellate Authority accepted the dismissal of the section 42 declaration that the application for the reopening of the Claim (Navy), which was allegedly dismissed, claimed that the unidentified order was non-binding. Was legal. The jurisdiction, and the trial of the trial court, under the judgment of the trial court, accepted the appeal below and the trial court's decision was set aside, the plaintiff's assertion fully affirming that the defendants Had quashed the net appellate, the site was inspected by the appellate authority and the appeal was decided after the vacancy. Was approved by the appellate court of the plaintiffs. In the circumstances the appeal brought by the defendant judge was rightly accepted, it shows that the appellate court decided the appeal after examining all the material available on record. Failure to indicate that false writings or evidence were not read in which the subsequent decision in the absence of illegal or weakening, there is no justification for the intervention of the High Court in the Appellate Court decision below.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
