Find a Lawyer

DANISH RAFIQUE versus MST. NAFEESA SIDDIQUI

Section 114 and O XLVII, R1 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 12 Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 44 Overview Object and Scope Exchange, by the Co-Owner Plaintiff, at Trial , Two defendants were compromised. The plaintiffs agreed to transfer their shares in favor of the plaintiff, and the court allowed the plea agreement. The remaining defendants sought to review the order on the basis that the co-owners did not own the shares without the consent of the other co-owners. In the absence of any legal bar, the co-owners can, for the purpose of reviewing power, enable the court to correct the error in order to prevent its error and injustice so that the scope of the review was very limited. And can be reviewed based on. Filed in AXLVII, an R1 CPC review may be filed where the record shows a mistake of law or fact and does not require any detailed investigation or evidence. In order to establish the same case, the suit between the plaintiff and the two defendants was settled with respect to their own shares in the property and the order in respect of the rights of the remaining defendants was clear and no agreement was accepted by them. And they were free to take action on the matter. The High Court refuses to amend its order allowing a compromise. online advocate from Liaquat Pur lawyer