Find a Lawyer

SHEIKH ATTIQ-UR-REHMAN SARWAR versus SAJJAD HUSSAIN

O XXI, R 1 At the time of settlement of the agreement between the parties, the essence of the High Court-approved consent order and the Appellant appear before the High Court, O, after failing to comply with the terms of the agreement between him and the defendant. Wind. XXI, R1, CPC will not help him pay any more unpaid amount than the time given by the High Court because the execution court could not proceed with this injunction and unless it was the same patent. After the date of the ratification contract and the deadline for the holiday to fall, the payment thereafter will not comply with the terms of the agreement as directed by the High Court.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS VALUATION v. ABDUL SHAKOOR ISMAIL KALOODI 2009 PTD 676
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN v. SHAUKAT ALI 2009 SCMR 678
• CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY through Director-General v. JAVED AHMAD 2009 PLC(CS) 679
• Engineer MAJEED AHMED MEMON v. LIAQUAT UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES, JAMSHORO 2009 SCMR 683
• Contractor Haji MUHAMMAD ALAM v. SHAUKAT SULTAN 2009 SCMR 688
• Mst. FATIMA BIBI v. ALTAF AHMED 2009 SCMR 693
• Mst. IFFAT NAZIR v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Population Welfare Department, Lahore 2009 SCMR 703
• REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION v. Haji GUL HASSAN 2009 SCMR 706

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

immigration advocates from Goular Khel lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes