Find a Lawyer

CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI THROUGH DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD

Sections 42 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XII, R6 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intra Court of Appeals Entries jurisdiction cannot be granted possession of the allotted plot to the plaintiff Could Authorities acknowledged the actions taken by the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff for the allotment of alternative plots to the plaintiff, but the government approved the alternative plot only because of the ban by the High Court (single judge). Disability appeared. The litigation filed by the authorities was barred by the authorities from justifying the scope in favor of the plaintiff, which should have been disputed by a single judge, although it was the only legal judge Maybe just the one who witnessed. The question would not apply to the ban because it was independent of the issues involved in the case because the only issue in the suit was whether the rights acquired by the plaintiff in respect of the plot i n the question as far as the previous year, the 1965 ban. Could be postponed due to imposition / Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge's decision and remanded for a fresh decision on the matter, allowing intra-court appeal. Was gone inheritance advocates near Battagram lawyer