Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN

Article 199 Constitution Petition Land Lease The order for the expulsion of tenants defaulting in the payment of the money was the plaintiff's landlord while the defendant was the tenant who was the defaulter and was liable to reject the High Court under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. The objection was raised for the first time and was never raised before the Appeal, Review or Review Forum. This kind of objection was meaningless because both sides had increased their evidence because they wanted the High Court to have a constitutional jurisdiction that was not unusual to interfere in the matter unless the order was disclosed. Would go , Action or non-action was violated by any of the defendants without legal or legal authority or jurisdiction to file a case for High Court involvement in their extraordinary jurisdiction in unlawful decisions / orders. No jurisdiction, illegality or irregularity was found

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014

• MUHAMMAD SHERAZ v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2014 PLD 170
• HAMAYUN v. D.C.O., KOHAT 2014 PCrLJ 173
• ABU BAKAR v. Mst. KHAYBER JAN 2014 YLR 178
• MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK OF KHYBER v. KARIM GUL 2014 PLC 183
• FAZAL KARIM v. POLITICAL AGENT KHYBER AGENCY 2014 PLD 186
• SOHAIL v. State 2014 PLD 189
• SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR v. SAMAR GUL 2014 PLC 190
• Mst. SHAZIA HAIDER v. GUL ISLAM 2014 PLD 194

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2014 →

immigration advocates phone number from Head Marala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes