Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD JAMIL MUGHAL versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE MUGHAL

O XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), applying for the provisional injunction of the Section 42 suit declaration, implemented in the event of a final declaration in favor of a final declaration without legality Will be required to pay the sale price. The plaintiff's plaintiffs' complaints were properly / legally resolved and both the courts below reached the same conclusion. An unidentified order did not guarantee interference of the High Court, and the validation was dropped

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• MUHAMMAD SABIR v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE Of JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 MLD 242
• AZHAR HUSSAIN GILLANI v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 CLC 314
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN RAJA v. KHAN MIR KHAN 2014 YLR 336
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR CHAUDHARY v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 361
• SPINTEX LIMITED through Manager Personal Administration v. EMPLOYEES\' OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION (E.O.B.I.) 2014 PLC 409
• Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ARVI v. MUSHTAQ AHMED 2014 CLC 410
• UNITED BANK LIMITED v. DISTRICT JUDGE WITH THE POWER OF LABOUR COURT 2014 PLC 418
• FOREST DEPARTMENT through Secretary Forest, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaf v. SHABBIR HUSSAIN 2014 CLC 538

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

famous lower court advocate from Kunjah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes