Find a Lawyer

NOOR HUSSAIN versus ALI GOHAR

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Predatory Act 1993 Section 21 (4) The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 42 pre-emption suit, the plaintiff was directed to issue security bonds equal to the sale price on the next date. Submit The trial, which was held for April 26, did not show any security bonds being filed on that day. The trial court extended the order by a week and, on appeal, the High Court found that by submitting security bonds, The regulation is done. By not allowing the accused person to be a full-time judge by the trial court, which was decided earlier, and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot be prosecuted by the court or any of its staff, from the Supreme Court, The trial court's order did not require the defendant to file a protective bond before the next date of hearing, but the decree stated that he had to do so or on the next deal even if there was any delusion or misconduct. There was attitude. The order cannot be fined to the plaintiff when it was available to the plaintiff for submission of a security bond on April 26, which was not the usual course for the court to issue. Postpone the case for a later date, and if at a later date the plaintiff finds that he did not enter a protective bond on the important date in which the plaintiff should have been rejected, the extension was approved, It was no longer necessary for the plaintiff to file a security bond. On this date, the High Court had justified in observing that if the order of extension was set aside, it would have served the plaintiff for any act of court default in filing the bond on that important date. tax advocates from Mohen Jo Daro lawyer