Find a Lawyer

HABIBULLAH PARACHA versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

A. XXI, R 35 Implementation of the Order for Real Estate / Applicants and with more than 200 people, the Maintenance Commissioner was instructed to place it in his possession, as it would allow the site to be built on a multi-purpose building. Construction is essential. Except for the applicant's promise to give him a shop in the new building, all other persons were provided shops with payment of Rs. 000000 rupees in the newly constructed building for the year 65 Rs65. However, the shop could not be provided. Because of this, the case was started by filing a case in favor of the applicants on the basis of the promise made by the decision-makers under which they offered to allot the showroom to the applicants in this way. Applicant filed execution petition to enforce pledges, judicial lenders claim showroom price of $ 25,000 However, while the applicant / order taker applied for payment of the amount purchased from the original allottees to which the shops were grants. Applicants' entry into a shop against a withdrawal card, being disputed, has no explanation available to the respondents / decision lenders on why such a store was not provided to the applicant. Because the applicant had a gross charge against his / her entitlement after withdrawal of the shop in the year 65 6665 66 along with the withdrawal card holders, without any justification, to get new value from the respondent applicant / individual holder. Was not in a position to justify, the case being a perfect example of defamation by the defendants Even the truth denied advocates from Dijkot lawyer