Find a Lawyer

ALLAH DITTA versus MST. MAJIDAN BEGUM

A. VII, R 24 and O XLI, R 19 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Applicants' dispute of restoring an appeal for the specific performance of a Section 12 suit agreement was a contention that they were at the address given Were not living. Instead they moved and the appellate court was obliged to submit notice to them through their counsel, knowing that the legal counsel for the applicants knew that the applicants were aware of the proceedings. His case has been transferred to the District Judge but he has never contacted his lawyer. He had knowledge of counsel for the applicants for two years and no exemption could be extended for such criminal proceedings and dismissed the same application at the time of filing the appeal for appeal. It was 30 days from the date. Delay filed for condolences Appeal for restoration of appeal was banned which he rightly rejected Appellate Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014

• SUN TUBE (PVT.) LTD. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, F.B.R. 2014 PTD 2135
• MUHAMMAD MADNI v. State 2014 YLR 2137
• NASEER AHMED v. State 2014 YLR 2146
• HASHIM ALI v. ASGHAR ALI 2014 YLR 2150
• MUHAMMAD ABID RASHEED v. State 2014 YLR 2167
• ATTA MUHAMMAD v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOUNSA SHARIF 2014 YLR 2185
• ASIF SOHAIL v. Mst. SADAF RAZZAQ 2014 YLR 2197
• MUHAMMAD AMIN v. State 2014 YLR 2207

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2014 →

patent advocate from Sakardu lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes