MUHAMMAD SHAHID versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL
OR 4, Section 12 (2) and 151 of the Punjab Rated Premises Act (VII of 2009), 19 in the case of rent exclusion, apply for defaulting to tenants by default of 1945 applicants' false statement The petition was moved to move the car scope tenant for leave but the tenant's constitutional request for removal was rejected simultaneously, in which the High Court ordered the withdrawal. Which was filed against the Supreme Court and the matter was sought after the record of the rent tribunal. High Court decision was remanded. At the same time, the appellate court's constitutional application was again rejected by the High Court, against which section 12 (2), read with section 151 under the CPC, on the basis that the tenant was given the CPC. It turned out that neither he nor his lawyer had authorized the other lawyer. The case was argued and it was given no opportunity of a hearing and it was wrongly presented to plead before the High Court consulted with its lawyer but the tenant applied for a hearing date. Another lawyer appeared and argued the case in which the tenant applicant was dismissed while appointing his own lawyer, or he was allowed to engage with another lawyer to work in his place. Together and other such lawyers were given the option to exercise the same authority that was given to their adviser, the document Placement agencies Construction of the building was uklatnma appointment of a lawyer and the agent hands
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
