Find a Lawyer

NASEERUDDIN versus KAZI ATTAF ALI

A. XXXIX, R 2 (3) The Court of Act (XXIV of 1976), Sections 3 and 4 restraining the injunction restoration court temporarily alleges that the defendants were acquitted and an FIR filed, I was thoroughly investigated and the respondents participated. The investigating officer said that there was no crime of settlement and such report was presented to the court and the FIR was dealt with because the applicant's allegations were not established, the investigation shows that the petition The borrower was not found in possession of the property in question at that date. The order passed by the High Court petitioner was not in the possession when the Revenue authorities inspected the site and it was not proved that the respondents expelled the applicant and for prosecution proceedings under the contempt of court Act, 1976 Had blamed myself.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• ABDULLAH v. MUHAMMAD HAROON 2010 CLC 14
• Haji ABDUL KARIM v. FLORIDA BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD. 2010 PLD 17
• Syed HAIDER IMAM RIZVI v. IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI 2010 PLC 20
• HERO MOTORS LTD. Through Authorized Signatory v. BABAR AUTO TRADING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY through Proprietor 2010 CLD 22
• GHULAM RASOOL v. State 2010 PCrLJ 25
• RANYAL TEXTILES through Proprietor/Employer v. SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.3, KARACHI 2010 PLD 27
• MASOOD AHMED v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad 2010 YLR 28
• ANEEZA GARMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Director v. PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.1 2010 PLC 31

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

list of supreme court advocates from Doaaba lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes