Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND OTHERS versus SULTAN

Article 185 (3) of the Supreme Court intervenes in the concurrence of courts below the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act (IV of 1912), Sections 10 and 19 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 scope. The finding of the strategy by the courts was in violation of the essential provisions of the Law Ounce to prove the defendants' conviction for the appeal was that all the courts below had made Section 10 of the Public Lands (Punjab) Colonization Act, 1912 and 19 had decided the case against them for violation of the mandatory provisions of 19. Accuracy cannot be traced back to a simultaneous search of the facts listed by the courts below, unless it is shown that such conclusions exist on its face, against such evidence, CR is so clear-cut. As impossible, or misguided that they would have to accept permanently a severe abortion of justice, or if the principle of defining evidence was misused or, in the end, if the finding was physically defective. Is proof of In such ible civil petitions, such proceedings and the rule of the court, the plaintiffs have to bear the burden that the information of the harmony recorded by the High Court is not sustainable on record and should be interfered with by the Supreme Court. So that the claimant fails to identify any weakness or illegality. The case was not brought out in the judgment passed by the High Court and under the parameters set by the High Courts. Supreme Court refuses to interfere in decision and refuses to appeal an order passed by the High Court online advocate from Sibi lawyer