Find a Lawyer

QADEEMI IMAM BARGAH versus SYED MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH

Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Claimant for Claimant asserts that suit property is a dedicated property, therefore the defendant has no right to change the nature of the same claimant that the claimant has not obtained permission Of The CPC Trial Court, dismissed by Section 92, the Advocate General, dismissed the case while the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The validity record reveals that the trial is a public matter before permission can not be obtained under section 92 under any competent court law, unless a CPC is obtained from the Advocate General. Revision excluded under the circumstances

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• JAVED AKHTAR v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1707
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through D.O.R. Layyah 2010 MLD 1708
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1709
• MUHAMMAD TAJ v. State 2010 MLD 1711
• ABDUL RAZZAQ alias KARIM KHAN v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM CHAUDHRY, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE 2010 PCrLJ 1717
• KHUDA BUKHSH v. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD 2010 YLR 1721
• MUHAMMAD MANSHA v. D.P.O., KASUR 2010 MLD 1722
• ABDUL REHMAN v. MUHAMMAD IDREES 2010 MLD 1726

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

solicitors from Loralai lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes