Find a Lawyer

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR HAFIZABAD versus SYED MUHAMMAD HASSAN

O XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 provisional injunction, petitioner's grant, undisclosed the order passed by the appellate court under which the trial court's order was set aside and consequently by the defendant. The filing order was temporarily allowed that he was entitled to draw irrigation water from a rehabilitation pellet in the respective state of the applicant that no water was approved for the rehabilitation in favor of the respondents. And he was not entitled to draw water from any collision bullet. The notification was cited under which the recovery The trial court had barred the irrigation from considering the exclusion of the record available for the provisional order sanctioning the provision, but the appellate court had allowed the irrigation department to correct the same policy, clearly setting this condition. The water supply would be for only three years. Could be extended in three years, but such an extension of time was unusual and only after the pre-approval of the Chief Engineer Respondents could not be issued a decree under which his land was granted. The rehabilitation scheme was included, even if the restoration supply was approved by the defendants in 1992, saying the approval expired on the latest appellate order in 1995, not legally sustainable under the circumstances. Was, consequently, dismissed by the trial court for the defendant's temporary injunction, \ r \ n \ r \ n maintained Or power of attorney advocate Chunian lawyer