Find a Lawyer

SULTAN SHAH versus PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Section 42 and Declaration 54 Claiming for Claimant Claims for Retention of Jurisdiction Disclaimer, Regarding the Occupation and Controversial Property, a permanent injunction was filed that the claimant owns 50% of the disputed property. The same and the defendants cross over some part of their land and part of the National Highway Department's land between the plaintiffs - the claimed land and the national highway defendants sued on the basis that the claim was made by the plaintiffs. It is not valid under section 42. No injunction could be granted under the Special Relief Act, 1877 and section 454 of the said Act. The trial court dismissed the decision of the Court of Appeal filed by the plaintiffs, under the appellate court's endorsement clause anywhere in the national highway. But no rights were claimed. All the claimants claimed that they owned the Pl Pl piece. The High Court refused to interfere with the amended jurisdiction and the High Court refused to interfere with the revision jurisdiction.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• MUHAMMAD IKHLAQ v. Mst. HAMEEDA NAQVI 2010 MLD 523
• MANZOOR ALI v. State 2010 YLR 523
• Mrs. NEELAM YASMIN ABBASI v. RETURNING OFFICER 2010 MLD 527
• MUHAMMAD HASHAM ANSARI v. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, KARACHI through Secretary 2010 CLC 527
• Mst. LAIBA ANTHONY v. State 2010 PCrLJ 531
• ANWAR-UD-DIN v. FAHMIDA AKHTAR 2010 CLC 532
• SHAFQAT ALI v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary 2010 PLC(CS) 536
• SONO GHANGHRO v. State 2010 PCrLJ 537

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

immigration advocates contact from Shogram lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes