Find a Lawyer

HABIB ULLAH versus MUHAMMAD USMAN

A. XLI, Rr. 31 and 32 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877). Appeal Court's decision in Articles 42 and 54 in the Appeal Suit for Prohibition and Permanent Order of Prohibition was argued by the defendant that the appellate court overturned the trial court's findings. And ordered the trial without discussing the evidence or the reasons. The appellate court's justification was spread on just one page on ten issues and did not touch the merits of the case and it was against the spirit of OLLI, R31, CPC. The line was mixed with references and the evidence was discussed and the appellate court had the exception to meet the reasoning of the appellate court's trial court's decision in its true meaning and the appellate court was not. O XLI, R should have been implemented. 31 and 33 of the CPC High Court remanded the Appellate Court for trial, keeping the appellate court's unwanted decision aside.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012

• Nawabzada TILLA MUHAMMAD KHAN v. Haji MUHAMMAD AFZAL 2012 YLR 2236
• DISTRICT OFFICER (FEMALE) v. AHMED SULTAN 2012 YLR 2250
• BILOUR MATCH INDUSTRIES v. PAPER WORLD (PVT.) LTD. 2012 YLR 2277
• MASHOOQ ALI v. MURSALIN SHAH 2012 YLR 2300
• THE STATE through Advocate General Khyber Bakhtunkhwa v. ABDUL SATTAR 2012 YLR 2352
• ABDUL SATTAR v. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER 2012 YLR 2356
• GUL SAID v. State 2012 YLR 2391
• Mst. SALAM BIBI v. AMAN ULLAH 2012 YLR 2408

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2012 →

criminal advocate from Kohistan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes