Find a Lawyer

AZIZULLAH versus MITTHA

Because of the fresh trial proceedings following the dismissal of section 11 and O IX, Rr 9 and 13 ex-prosecution, the parties, suit and relief have been demanded that the effective principles of the RS Judiciary are the same in the former. The case will not apply to the plaintiff's dismissal for unlawful prosecution did not take advantage of the remedy by filing an application for the maintenance of a regular suit, therefore, such a new case may be imposed by the provisions of OI, R9, CPC. Will be stopped.

Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2013

• NIZAM DIN v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2013 YLR 1489
• EASTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through Azhar Qayyum Managing Director v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary 2013 YLR 1605
• SAJIDA MAQSOOD v. AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary 2013 YLR 1713
• AYAZ AHMED v. SHAMIM AKHTER 2013 MLD 1897
• NOORDAD v. MUHAMMAD SADIQ 2013 YLR 2829
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR v. MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN KHATAK 2013 PLD 1
• RABIA AKHTER v. MUHAMMAD AYUB 2013 MLD 16
• MUHAMMAD AZAM v. KHALID MEHMOOD 2013 PCrLJ 36

All Supreme Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2013 →

immigration advocates phone number from Bhan Saeedabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes