Find a Lawyer

MIR MITHA KHAN versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

Section 20 (c) and O. VIII, R11 Specific Relief Act (of 1877), Section 42 entitle the plaintiff to be entitled to an appointment in the suit to declare the rights to be settled. The absence of a territorial jurisdiction of the trial court will mean the legal demand for the right to be prosecuted for the purpose of the present case for which this case was filed, in a paper published on Q in this post. Advertised for. And in response, the plaintiff submitted his application for the position through Q in the appropriate place, therefore, it was partially settled on the Act Q, and at the conclusion of the case the following trial court The case was filed before the court error. That lacked territorial jurisdiction

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012

• SALEH MUHAMMAD v. BAZ MUHAMMAD 2012 MLD 1907
• Dr. SAEEDULLAH JAFFAR v. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRAFFIC, QUETTA 2012 CLC 1911
• Dr. MUHAMMAD AZAM KASI v. THE STATE through Deputy Prosecutor-General Accountability Court No.1, NAB, Quetta 2012 PCrLJ 1950
• Mst. FAIQA ABDUL HAYEE v. CHAIRMAN, BALOCHISTAN BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, QUETTA 2012 CLC 1958
• MUHAMMAD ADNAN v. THE STATE 2012 YLR 2056
• MURAD v. SYED MUHAMMAD 2012 YLR 2115
• SAMIULLAH v. Haji GHULAM HAIDER 2012 YLR 2186
• ABDUL MALIK v. THE STATE 2012 YLR 2288

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2012 →

law firms from Daharki lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes