Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus HABIB JAN

A IX, R 13 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Article 164 The petition for limiting the former party decree of the applicants was that no matter was settled and the appellate court rightly stated that Applicants are knowledgeable about litigation. And it was their duty to be careful that the applicants did not apply for concession of delay and did not go beyond the record for good cause. The cases should be decided on merit instead of dismissal on technical grounds. Negligence of the case is not allowed. Applicants had to give good reason and they could not benefit from mere submission of affidavits. Applicants were fighting the case and later absent themselves. And the recording of the evidence was not necessary. The courts did not have conclusive conclusions. Warrant interference was rightly dismissed in the High Court petition dismissing the lower courts from review

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• WAPDA through Chief Engineer, Mangla Dam Raising Project Mirpur v. INHABITANT OF BOHA through Fazal Ellahi 2014 MLD 1457
• KHADIM HUSSAIN v. MUHAMMAD YASEEN 2014 CLC 1474
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, MUZAFFARABAD v. GHALIB HUSSAIN 2014 PTD 1484
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN v. The CUSTODIAN GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 YLR 1514
• SHAUKAT NAWAZ MIR v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary 2014 PCrLJ 1567
• FAISAL MUMTAZ RATHORE v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 YLR 1641
• Syed NAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH v. MIR HUSSAIN 2014 CLC 1652
• ABDUL AZIZ CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE v. S.D.O. ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, SUB-DIVISION MIRPUR 2014 MLD 1680

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

advocates from Bannu lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes