Find a Lawyer

JAMROZ KHAN versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN

O XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Article 42 suits the contentious land to declare suit and apply for temporary injunction which was not divided according to law which were the accused. In the disputed land, a contract was submitted that if a decision was taken against them, they would not claim any improvement cost. The court had the discretion to inspect the disputed land and neither party could claim the same court inspection. Is a search of the facts recorded by the courts below. The review was rejected in circumstances where the reasons were based on reasonable and enthusiastic reasons

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• Dr. MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 585
• MENDI KHAN v. INAYAT ALI 2014 MLD 711
• STATE through Advocate-General Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad v. MUSHTAQ AHMED QURESHI 2014 PCrLJ 729
• Syed SHARAFAT HUSSAIN NAQVI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 754
• JAVAID IQBAL v. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD KASHMIR GOVERNMENT MUZAFFARABAD 2014 PLC(CS) 787
• TAXATION OFFICER/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX KOTLI A.K. v. SAID AKBAR 2014 PTD 793
• ANWAR BEGUM v. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, MANGLA DAM RAISING PROJECT, MIRPUR 2014 MLD 840
• Engr. AWAIS SAMAD v. AJ&K GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary 2014 PLC(CS) 846

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

famous high court advocate from Sangote lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes