NAVAID HUSSAIN versus JAHANGIR SIDDIQUI THROUGH ATTORNEY
A. XXXIX, Changes in RR 1 and 2 in Land Use and Master Planning, Bye Laws, 2003, Schedule 3 (2) Interim Association, Appellant's Denial, declared the construction project under consideration by the defendant to be a resident. Was illegally commercialized and the proper procedure was not adopted to commercialize the residential plot, appellants granted interim relief / temporary injunction, APXX, R14 and 2, c. The application was transferred under PC. Respondent's court, after hearing the advice of the parties, rejected that the applicant's dispute resolution dispute through an improper order was located on a road, which was a commercial road according to the authority's resolution when an area was declared commercial. , Then the commercial activities were required to be performed without interruption in accordance with the law. The educational evaluation of the material available on record shows that the appellant has no importance. The balance of convenience in the Elias case was not in favor of the appellants. Because the plot owners have a lot of difficulty exercising their legal rights to deal with it The plot was said to have feared that the whole building was full of interest and third party was a law of the land. Had already been made, the appellants would suffer irreparable harm if they were refused the interim injunction, because the loss, if any, could be compensated in the form of damages as claimed by the appellants. What is under this is the application filed by the appellant. O XXXIX, Rr 1, 2, CPC Dismissed, no intervention needed
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
