Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFI versus FATEH MUHAMMAD

Section 44 of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), the section 42 writ petition for rejecting the application for the release of documents, which the trial court rejected when the trial was at the stage of proof, the trial court Retained court order. The writ petition revealed that the relevant District Judge and Civil Judge were not enforced as a party, although attempts were made to cancel the orders passed by both of them if no necessary party was present before the court. There could be no decision under 44. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, no writ petition can be filed against a private person but a local authority petition against a person or a person acting in connection with the affairs of the state is excluded in the cases. had gone.

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2012

• Mst. KHURSHID v. MUHAMMAD ASLAM 2012 MLD 936
• Raja SHAH NAWAZ KHAN v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2012 PLC(CS) 959
• ABID HUSSAIN v. State 2012 CLD 1020
• ABID HUSSAIN v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1159
• Dr. MAZHAR IQBAL TAHIR, CMO BHU v. PROVINCIAL COORDINATOR NATIONAL PROGRAM (FP & PHC) MUZAFFARABAD AJ&K 2012 PLC(CS) 1375
• ANJUM SHAHBAZ v. EHTESAB BUREAU through Chairman/Chief Prosecutor Ehtesab Bureau, Muzaffarabad 2012 PCrLJ 1381
• FAZAL-E-RABBI KHAN v. AZAD GOVERNMENT throughChief Secretary, Muzaffarabad 2012 PLC(CS) 1382
• Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILLANI v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2012 PLC(CS) 1387

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2012 →

solicitors from Farooqabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes