Find a Lawyer

HAQ NAWAZ versus MACHHIA

Sections 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OLXX, RR1, 2 suit for the permanent order and permanent order of the claim that the order passed by the sub divisional canal officer is illegal and unlawful. The plaintiff also filed the petition. The defendants' grant of the temporary injunction was contested on the basis that the anti-litigation institution was enforced before the trial court established that the application for a temporary injunction was accepted on the petition filed by the defendants. , It is expected by the appellate court that the case was established by the plaintiff following the imposition of an improper order dated 30 2 2001, the appellate court had rightly determined that under certain circumstances of the case. In view of the trial, the trial judge should not have issued an injunction. The petition was dismissed by the High Court in an unknown order

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• MUHAMMAD SARDAR v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB 2011 YLR 119
• SHAHEEN COTTON MILLS, LAHORE v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE through Secretary 2011 PLD 120
• SHUMAILA RAZA v. DISTRICT OFFICER 2011 YLR 125
• RASHEED alias SHEEDA v. State 2011 PCrLJ 129
• MUNAWAR MEHMOOD v. NADEEM SIDDIQUI 2011 CLC 130
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF v. A.S.J. 2011 YLR 131
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Executive Engineering v. AMMICO CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE 2011 MLD 135
• TARIQ AHMAD FAROOQI v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 2011 YLR 138

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

best law firm from Mehrab Pur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes