Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AFZAL versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT

The cancellation of the appeal and review on the issue of canal and drainage 1957 R 96 was not settled and no evidence was presented which led to the divisional canal officer by the trial court on the question of demarcation. The order's effect for was retained but isolated. In the appeal in the brief ground of the First Appellate Court which was barred from appealing against the order of the sub-divisional canal officer filed by the appellant before the Divisional Canal Officer, the High Court decided to retain the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court. I failed that is not a problem. To some extent and in such circumstances no evidence could be found on the request of the parties and in the absence of any evidence headed by the parties, he said that the canal officer's point of order was passed on 25 7 1983. And copies were requested on the same day the copies submitted were provided on 13 8 1983, three days after the appeal was filed under the question ie on 16 8 1993, the High Court of Felld obtained how many copies. Due to the lack of time spent in obtaining copies of the order on which the law was to be deducted, the appeal filed before the Divisional Canal Officer was clearly within the bounds period. S was within the last 15 days. The High Court order could not be upheld; the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court in connection with the remand. immigration advocates contact from Miran Shah lawyer