Find a Lawyer

CH. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus GHULAM?RASOOL

Order for implementation of CPC Orders and Orders Order XXI, RR 35 and 103 and Section 115 Punjab Pre-Emission Act (IX of 1991), Section 2 (C) for the possession In the trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's case 17 5. The defendants of 1992 preferred the appeal against a decree dated 30 1992 1992 under which the judgment and injunction were suspended The plaintiff applied for his order on 28 ff 1992 and 30 1992 1992 Seized the land under occupation, the accused applied for recovery of the possession in the execution court. On the basis that the action taken for the grant of possession was fraudulent and the appellate court could not be sued despite the injunction, they vacated the order and to avoid possession of the land taken in the execution of the decree. Appealed in appellate court. However, the restoration proceedings by the Appellate Court of Appeal, refusing to refer the plaintiff to the enforcement court, allowed the prosecutors to decide on the merits of the execution proceedings for grant of possession. By allowing the court the opportunity to do so, he took the right and equitable route and presented the record so that the execution of the decree was completed and finalized, in which the ordinary course took long time in the subordinate court's decree, The question was, he was hanged within a few days, and in the meantime he was finalized. And all that was expected by the end of the court that he would go ahead with the judgment of the conflict with the officially about this conflict. With famous high court advocate from Shedani sharif lawyer