Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM

The Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1913 Section 15 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the Plaintiffs' pre-notice was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the period after the period fixed by the court and beyond the period in the court fee. The deficiency was removed. The first appeal of the limits set for the trial trial was overturned in the court and the High Court upheld the decision of the first Appellate Court; the second appeal was upheld, leaving the case ineligible. Was made, only after the period when the competent court came to take care of it, and by that time it was banned. That the net profit statement has already been received by the plaintiffs, and they themselves can meet the reduction of court fees and supply it before the expiry of the limitation period, thus it is not necessary for the court It was to determine the specific amount itself and demand it. The dispute was not appealed to any court or authority at any early stage to meet the deficiency of the plaintiffs, so it cannot be allowed to rise on appeal at the appeal stage because it contains a factual There was content that no one could detect. The Supreme Court's official declaration in the case reported as Siddiq Khan's PLD 1984 SC 289 on yet another dispute, left no room for the defendants on the question of law being raised, from leave of appeal. Declined online advocate from Phoolnagar (Bhai Pheru) lawyer