Find a Lawyer

ZARDULLAH KHAN versus MST. RUQIYYA HANIF MANIAR

In Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), the Section 100 suit claims to be in possession of the suit property as a result of an agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff as a result of the contract to sell the property. But both the courts rejected the case. And the appellant legitimate plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit property after paying Rs 400,000 to the plaintiff and the courts did not consider such a case and it was necessary to decide whether to pay by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was held in his possession in connection with the payment of the sum of money. Or was it in another county when a person who owned some immovable property as a result of a sale contract, would presumably have entered such an agreement correctly, the High Court directed? The parties should be allowed to add evidence so that the question of possession can be properly answered after payment of the amount. The High Court has set aside the judicial appointments approved by the two courts and the trial court has been remanded to decide the case.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• MUHAMMAD UMER MANGRIO v. State 2014 MLD 1813
• ZULFIQAR ALI v. Mrs. WAJIHA SALEEM 2014 YLR 1828
• ZAFAR ABBAS v. State 2014 MLD 1830
• AL IHSAN ELECTRONICS TRADING (LLC) v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division 2014 PTD 1833
• Meer MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ v. JAMIA MASJID HANFIA 2014 YLR 1853
• MUHAMMAD ASIM v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue 2014 PTD 1897
• MUHAMMAD ESSA GODIL v. Mst. SITARA JAMIL 2014 YLR 1901
• Malik MUHAMMAD YASEEN v. Syed RAZA HYDER 2014 YLR 1927

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

patent advocate from Dunyapur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes