Find a Lawyer

MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGISTERED) THROUGH PRESIDENT versus MADINA MASJID THROUGH SECRETARY, INTEZAMIA COMMITTEE

To file a fresh case for the same cause of proceedings under section 8 and 42 demarcation act (IX of 1908), section 28 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), A XXIII, R1, by the courts under the anti-tribal It has been claimed to find a harmony of facts. The property was in unlawful possession of the property since 1 1968 filed by the plaintiff in 1979, which is why the plaintiff withdrew the 10 10000, with permission to file a fresh case in 5 2002. , But that was the trial court's order to withhold or dismiss the injunction prohibited by the trial court, which was upheld by the appellate court, filed by the appellant in 1979, by the defendant. Living within 12 years of unlawful occupation, he was already in court, after returning to trial. The second case was filed in the year 2002, 2002, 33 years after the unlawful occupation of the defendants, and for this reason 31st 1991, was banned, namely the Supreme Court in the case titled Maqbool Ahmed v Haku. On the date of the enforcement of the court decision. SCMR 2063, reported as Emaat-e-Pakistan, 1991, which was after the illegal occupation of the defendants for more than 22 years, was allegedly the property of the plaintiff, under section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908. It was extinguished, it no longer existed. And the Supreme Court decision did not affect the exercise of the jurisdiction of the reviewer, as well as reviewing the non-existent right high court, and refusing to interfere with the decisions and orders which were reviewed by the two courts. It has been deleted under circumstances \ r \ n top advocates from Abdul Hakim lawyer