Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ILYAS SULERI versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM KHAN

Section 42 and 47 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974, a part of the decision of the High Court, was signed before the High Court in which some remarks were passed against the appellant (s) regarding the terms and services while the constitutional petition was granted. Has been deleted. The issue cannot be decided on the use of constitutional jurisdiction, and this has come under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, but so far it has been remarked that the interpretation of the decisions of the High Courts adopted by the appellant is serious. It overturned the jurisdiction of the courts, and the explanation presented by such officials was so convincing and profound that the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case and even when it was found that the Constitution Since the petition is premature, the court had no justification to discuss the merit of the matter. In resolving disputes not in useless exercise nor in any exercise, the court must first decide the rights and obligations of the parties and provide justice in solid form = thus in the High Court, the appellant ( Officers) do not wish to file remarks irrespective of the fact whether they were factually or legally correct or dismissed certain sections of the judgment in which negative comments were made against the appellants (s). Was [Removal of Remarks] top civil advocates from Issa Khel lawyer