CHIEF SECRETARY, GILGIT-BALTISTAN versus ABDUL GHANI
Section 42 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXIV, Rr 3 and 5 Gilgit-Baltistan (Sovereign and Self-Government) Order, 2009, Article 60 (13) filed by Plaintiff for defamation of important and necessary matters Was it a relief that it was the landlord who was suitably allotted on the suit land? The plaintiff also prayed that the defendants be prevented from interfering and that the seizure of the land was forcibly resisted by the defendants, who denied the property application. The plaintiffs also and the plaintiffs' request for uncontested occupation of the suit land were jointly ordered by the two courts to verify the case on the second appeal before the Chief Justice regarding the allotment order of the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar. Of Plaintiff's inquiries revealed that the allotment made in favor of the plaintiffs was fake and forged, while the inquiry report made by the Chief Court as part of the file, was not taken into consideration, which included both the courts, including the Chief Court. The allotment order had failed to make up its mind to formulate important and necessary matters, important issues and material questions should have been resolved first. The period of litigation was a recognized principle of formation of cases after a detailed discussion on each issue, but the courts below did not violate the same justice nor did it seem to have fully. Was adopted by The following courts were without the necessary and basic structure of the law, which was misused by the practice of law. The appeal for leave of appeal was converted by the Supreme Appellate Court into appeal and they
Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010
