FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS
Appeals filed against sections 96 and 115 of the Code of Conduct 1908 were filed against the orders of the trial court before appearing before the appellate court before the appellate court despite repeated calls to the date of postponement of the hearing. Appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed. Under appellant's representative's impression, appellant's lawyers were not interested in arguing with appellants on behalf of appellant's court that the appellant's counsel did not intend to press appeals in the light of appellant's representative statement, was incorrect. Because the appellate court was not authorized to make such a statement, the appellate court's obligation was to decide the appeals or postpone the hearing of the case subject to payment of costs in the cases, which the appellate court views. What was clearly unnecessary by law, could not be. Appointment of jurisdiction over High Court's stability Appellate court below amended and remanded the case after hearing by the parties in accordance with the law
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
