Find a Lawyer

ALI ZAHIR JAFARI versus STATE

The final jurisdiction of the High Court, revising the judgment of Sections 9369 and 1 561, although connected with the judgment passed by the Criminal Court under CCP, was the conditions under which the courts made their decisions and orders. Reviewed or called them back. If a decision or order was passed in violation of any law, if a decision or order was passed in violation of any law, it would, in appropriate cases, be returned to the High Court under the inherent powers of the High Court. It can be called or reviewed, even had the power to correct its own orders or to have such power in court to recall a wrong order. And nobody had to look for specific supplies in this regard. r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• MAHESH LAL v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through the Secretary Ministry of Excise and Taxation Sindh 2011 YLR 2925
• SHERAL v. SAJAN alias SAJOO 2011 YLR 2929
• PRINTEK (PVT.) LTD. v. SHAHID NABI MALIK 2011 YLR 2941
• WAZEER ALI v. State 2011 YLR 3022
• ROSHNI TELEVISION, Messrs Direct Media Corporation (Private) Ltd. through Chief Executive Officer v. PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY through Chairman 2011 PLD 1
• AVENTIS LTD., KARACHI v. MINISTRY OF LABOUR, MANPOWER AND OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS LABOUR AND MANPOWER DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAK 2011 PLC 1
• PARVEZ ALI v. Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM 2011 YLR 4
• Mrs. ZAHIDA KHAN v. Mst. GULNAZ QURESHI 2011 PLD 6

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

advocate from Jalal Pur Priwala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes