Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus KHUDA BAKHSH

O XLI, Rr 4 and 33 The filing of an appeal without the enforcement of the parties required that the effect suit was the property of the deceased who was survived by two sons and two daughters, leaving the daughters of any of the late plaintiffs / daughters to accept the change of inheritance. Was done in favor of sons. The deceased's daughters challenged the transfer of questions through a declaration, the case, which was ordered, the second daughter of the applicant / defendant who supported the trial decree and also the plaintiff, Stated that the declaratory claim was not enforced as a party to the appellate legality. RL XI, R 4, CPC provided that the plaintiff or any of the defendants would file an appeal for a joint cause, but such an appeal was deemed necessary by the other co-defendant or the co-defendant. Had it not been for one of them, such an appeal would have been enforced, Rule 33 of the OLLCPC would not have been of great help in such circumstances, the decree was irrevocable as the second daughter of the late petitioner. Being a legal representative of the parties was essential, therefore, it is important for the respondents / defendants to submit to all the required parties in the appeal filed by them. PRO but it was not done, but the defendants be given the status of an application or apylynt respondents. In his appeal, the appeal was disqualified. The remand order approved by the appellate court was not legally durable so the high court set it aside. online advocate from Thana Bula Khan lawyer