Find a Lawyer

RAJA MUHAMMAD BASHIR versus SHAUKAT HABIB

Articles 42 and 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), section 12 (2) and of the OXXIII and R3 suit, challenging the declaration and cancellation of the Ceiling Deed on fraudulent and misrepresentation charges and canceling the sale case During the trial, the parties compromised on the property in dispute, they filed their statements, but before the decree was passed on the basis of the settlement process, the defendant submitted the petition to the trial court. A lawsuit alleging that he had committed fraud. The petitioners and the plaintiffs affected by the judgment of the court of appeal filed in the appeal before the Appellate Court felt that the settlement process should be canceled on the basis of the issue fixed by the same trial court and no order was passed. The Supreme Court accepted the plaintiffs' appeal, saying that after recording the settlement, the trial court was bound to pass the judgment and I, XXIII, R 3, as a compromise under CPC while the dispute was in the Supreme Court. At the hearing, the defendants dismissed the case in view of the clause of the plaintiff's CPC in view of section 12 (2). Was it that the amendment of section 12, CPC was effectively effective and the trial court did not take any illegal action in rejecting the defendant's modification case in section 12, the CPC declared fraud and misrepresentation Provided a way to challenge an order or order passed on the basis of the preceding effect; and it will apply to the date of the execution of the suit filed before the date of the amendment or settlement of Azad Kashmir. When the trial court before the case was amended when you need a advocate from Gujranwala lawyer