Find a Lawyer

GUL NAYAB SHAH versus NAMKEEN SHAH

With the approval of Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXXIII, R1 Appeal, the return of the suit to the Principal Lower Appellate Court was not allowed to withdraw the case with the permission of the plaintiff to be fresh but the Chief Court. Allowed unconditional withdrawal of the same suit, under AXXIII, the CPC was only possible in exceptional cases in which the return of the suit at the appellate stage was allowed, with the permission to file a fresh case on the same issue. There was no prejudice on the part of the rights party. Proper and not legal clearances allow unconditional withdrawal to protect the interests of the parties. The Supreme Appeal Court amended the decision passed by the Chief Court and allowed the appeal to be set aside on the order amending the application to withdraw the case.

Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010

• AHALIAN DAYIN v. MIRZA 2010 GBLR 73
• MALOOK KHAN v. State 2010 GBLR 75
• KAMARAN KHAN v. SECRETARY FOR KASHMIR AND NORTHERN AREAS AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD 2010 GBLR 79
• KHUSH MALIK v. State 2010 GBLR 83
• ALI SARWAR v. Mst. MARYUM 2010 GBLR 86
• MCB BANK LIMITED through President, MCB Chambers, Karachi v. RIZWAN ALI KHAN 2010 GBLR 88
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Northern Areas, Gilgit v. KHALIDA KHANUM 2010 GBLR 92
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary N.A. Gilgit v. KEHKASHAN BEGUM 2010 GBLR 95

All Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit judgments of 2010 →

advocate from Kot Radha Kishan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes