Find a Lawyer

ABDUL KARIM KHAN versus BIBI FATIMA

Intellectual Property Chitral Regulation 1974 Dispute Settlement Section 3 (2) [as amended by Chitral Regulation (II of 1976)]] The word `dispute \ meaning, scope and import of the word` dispute ' As in section 3. Rule III of 1974, however, indicates that in the former State of Chitral, ownership of immovable property, or any right or interest, must be related to it, in which the parties shall make a partial clause (i) to (iii). And so, `` The dispute should be of a nature and should be related to the categories as mentioned in Section 3 (111 of 1974) `` Mehtar Jao para, para (a) to (d) of C (2). The dispute between the parties which is not covered by the provisions of Rule III of 1974 cannot be decided under the provisions of the Rule. The `dispute 'should relate to the ownership of immovable property in the former state, or any rights or interests. The Chitral, which must be parties only, is to be disputed by paragraph (i) to paragraph (i) and paragraph (a) of section 3 (2) of section 3 of Rule III of 1974. (D) Should be categorized by category in the dispute between the applicant and the defendant even though the former state Chitral claimed ownership of the immovable property, but then the parties are contesting the owners of the disputed land, Pars ( i) I do not fall into any of the three types mentioned, (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of Rule III of 1974, nor were the tenants specifically to speak to the parties on the dispute. And neither was examined in the context defined in this clause or claims under the former owner and former state Chitral Chitral scavenger former landlord and tenant nor the 1976 Regulation II when you need a advocate from Jalozai lawyer