Find a Lawyer

SABIR AYYAZ versus GUL RUKH SAMINA

Claims 3 and 7 constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Petition under Section 3 of the Illegal Settlement Act, 2005 seized the land of the complainants and an interim relief applicants appeared to the respondents and after considering the evidence. They were charged. According to the record, the applicants were acquitted and their success was not challenged by the defendant court, after which the applicants refused to resume the occupation from which they were taken. The accuracy record revealed that the interim order was approved at a time when the applicant was still in charge of the petition, which was compiled on 11 9 2006 while an invalid interim order was passed on 15 10 2005. Was when the trial was imposed under Section 7 of the Unlawful Settlement Act 2005, when the court was empowered to pass an interim order during the trial, of course, at which stage after the commencement of the trial. 15 10 The court of 2005 did not begin, it had no jurisdiction to declare the interim order passed because it was sole and sole basis Can be eaten. The court's refusal to return the applicants to their possession was not only illegal, but it was legally binding under the law to restore the parties after the apparently unfair court had settled the matter. Therefore, the relevant original position was directed by the police to restore possession of the land belonging to the applicants. immigration advocates phone number from Rahimyar Khan lawyer