Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus HAJI MUHAMMAD ASHRAF

A. XXI, R 10 & 5 151 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 12 Min., Application for restitution of execution petition was dismissed on 3 2000 10 2000 because the statement of the decree holder was rejected. The parties had agreed and there was no need for it. After any further action against the holder of the decree, three years after the withdrawal, an application for the revocation of the preliminary execution petition, which was dismissed on the order that the appeal was satisfied, was allowed. It was confirmed in the date of 9 30 9 2000, depending on the contract. Which came into force between them and the creditor of the judgment claimed that the creditor of the judgment did not comply with the said agreement, therefore, Regulator 1 4 was entitled to execute the first decree of the date of 1998, The dispute raised by the decree taker was considered invalid even if the agreement was accepted. The verdict was entered into by the debtor. This order will not support the borrower's case. The accused contract is maximized, the decree may be considered satisfactory or it may present a new cause of action against the executor. If so, the regulators will have to comply with this agreement rather than allow the application to be processed and the unclean order was set aside on the High Court. immigration advocates contact from Samundri lawyer