Find a Lawyer

ALLAH DITTA versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OLX XX, RR 1 and 2 Suit Declaration Interim Declaration The plaintiff claimed to be the buyer of the exemption plot for valuable consideration but the development authority issued the same to the trial court. The interim order sought to retain status is forbidden, but the lower appellate court set aside the order passed by the trial court. The plaintiff was claiming to be a better buyer for the value and he had to prove his case before the Civil Court Trial Court that the issuance of the status quo would be in the interest of both parties, but the lower appellate court appealed to the parties. Was disregarded and thus the decree regarding the rejection of the interim injunction was invalidated, which was approved by the lower appellate court. Permission granted to trial court revision \ r \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• CHAIRMAN INDUS MOTORS CO. v. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD 2012 PLD 264
• TOWN COMMITTEE, DEPALPUR through Tehsil Nazim Depalpur, District Okara v. Mst. AMTUL HAMEED 2012 YLR 269
• CHAKWAL TEXTILES MILLS LIMITED, RAWALPINDI ROAD CHAKWAL v. DIRECTOR SOCIAL SECURITY, RAWALPINDI 2012 PLC 270
• Mst. SURRAYA IQBAL v. P.A.R. CO. 2012 PLD 271
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ v. AYAZ MEHMOOD 2012 PLD 273
• JEEWAY PAKISTAN WORKERS UNION through General Secretary v. PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE 2012 PLC 276
• SHAMSHAD BIBI v. DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN 2012 YLR 277
• NASIR ALI v. State 2012 MLD 278

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocates contact from Ahmadpur East lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes