Find a Lawyer

AMIR FAYAZ ALI KHAN versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE JUDICIAL-I

Article 12 (2) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 189, 190 and 1991 Decision to retain constitutional petition The Supreme Court's final decision to reopen the vacant property allotment case was not even granted to the applicant. That the applicant was subsequently filed under CPC under section 12 (2), in connection with the Board of Revenue's petition regarding the allotment of the house by the Board of Revenue under section 12 (2), CPC The application was dismissed on the grounds that it was not eligible to file the same plea. The petitioner was that the plaintiff had committed fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the allotment in his favor, even for a moment it was not possible to consider that the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and reviewed by the Supreme Court. There is room for revocation and reopening after the request for. The matter was left open, under section 12 (2), CPC, under the auspices of the petitioner, the applicant again attacked again with the second abuse. Such dubious means cannot be defeated by improper and improper use of the purpose, purpose and purpose of Art 189 and 190 of the Constitution, nor should it be allowed by the High Court in the constitutional jurisdiction. Can go When there were no legs to stand by the applicant for alleged fraud / misrepresentation from another person, he could not allow others to be dragged into litigation when accused He had repeatedly lost his case to the Supreme Court; on the basis of any discovery principle or basis, no subordinate officer could have been lodged under Section 12 (2). solicitors from Kunri lawyer