Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Interim Court of Appeal, disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge under section 7 of the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005 ) On behalf of the respondent. And observed that, since there was no legally appellant on the disputed property, an interim relief was directed to keep possession of the disputed property, the relevant section H was also directed to take possession of the disputed property. Respondents should be restored. The constitutional applicant's order was filed by the appellant, which was dismissed. The impeachment order of the Single Bench clearly indicated that the appellant had violated the below court order which prohibited the appellant from interfering with the respondents' possession, finding the appellant. A constitutional application for clean hands was not filed for. Relief under constitutional jurisdiction even otherwise the court order was of a transient nature and the appellant still had to fight the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution under the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005, no appeal jurisdiction And there was a significant difference between the jurisdiction of the appeal and the constitutional jurisdiction. It was not appreciated at the time of the constitutional filing and the intra-court appeal order passed by the Single Bench did not face any unlawful interference or injustice in the offending orders.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
