Find a Lawyer

AZIZ-UR-REHMAN versus MAULANA MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SHAH

A. VII, R11 and Section 92 Specific Relief Act (of 1877), Section 42 suit for declaration of dismissal of section 42 application, CPC Scope defendant filed OVII, R 11, CPC trial Filed a written statement requesting the dismissal of the plaintiff under. The court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, concluded that since the plaintiff had filed a case for a public land / public charity, it was considered under section 92, the approval of the Advocate General, CPC Was not summoned, the case was withheld by law, and while requesting the provisions of Order VII, R 11, the CPC dismissed the plaintiff by an anonymous order, the trial court affirmed the order. Once it was proven on record that the property, the subject matter of litigation was either a public trust or a public charitable, lawsuit. It was necessary for the insurer to obtain prior approval of the Advocate General, but in the present case the question was when the plaintiff's case was filed. And a written statement was submitted by the defendant, the trial court was obliged to compile the appropriate cases and provide the parties with the opportunity to guide the evidence and contradictory evidence. And as a result, if it proves on the record that the property, subject to litigation was either a public trust or a for-profit entity, the bar under Section 92, CPC will be attracted. And will be responsible for dismissing the case. But if the evidence on the record was understandable, it was a private trust. Then section 92, the provisions of the CPC will not apply because, when a person is in his private capacity famous lower court advocate from Kala Bagh lawyer