Find a Lawyer

MST. GULSHAN PARVEEN versus MUHAMMAD TAYYAB

Section 11 of the Special Relief Act (Constitution of 1877), sections 8 and 42, were pronounced by the trial court on the declaration and occupation of the suit for purposes of judicial fees and jurisdictional suits, but the appellate court ruled. And set aside the order. The trial court, based on the fact that the trial court was a civil judge III class, had no jurisdiction to decide the trial, which cost Rs 6/7 lakh, which was decided by the civil judge Ist class. Was assigned a fresh verdict. He claimed that no objection was taken in the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge III Class - no objection was taken by the defendant in the prescribed manner in writing the jurisdiction of the court in the Civil Judge's Court. In the statement, the first party for which neither the first appeal nor the second appeal raised any objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court, nor was any objection taken at any stage in the trial court. The jurisdiction of the Civil Judge III class and secondly, that the first appellate court could not find that the impugned order passed by the appellate court was without legal authority and therefore the first appellate court granted the merits of this trial. Had failed justice. The impeachment order was held with the direction that the District Judge would ask for a record and decide on his appeal. \ R \ n top advocate from Qazi Ahmed lawyer