Skip to main content

Islamabad District Courts

Image
By
District Court is the highest court in a district as per the provisions of Civil Procedure Code 1908. Similar for criminal justice systems the Sessions Court has the same stature. In Islamabad like most districts, the District Judges have the powers of Sessions Judges also.

Islamabad was divided into two districts few years ago i.e. Islamabad East and Islamabad West. For that reason Islamabad has two District and Sessions Judges. Similarly each District and Sessions Judge has around 5 Additional District and Sessions Judges working under them. There are further 2 senior civil judges, along with several Family Judges, Civil Judges, Magistrates and Rent Controllers working under them.

Islamabad District Courts are located in the region of Sector F-8 of Islamabad. There are around 4000 Lawyers having around 2000 offices in the premises of Islamabad District Courts. Similarly the High Court of Islamabad is located in Sector G-10 with having around 7 Judges including the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court.

For more you can consult lawyergolra@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan (Golra)
Advocate High Court
+92-333-5339880I



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HUMAN RIGHT CASE NO. 5818 OF 2006

By
PLJ 2008 SC 262 [Original Jurisdiction] Present: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi & Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ. HUMAN RIGHT CASE NO. 5818 OF 2006 Human Right Case No. 5818 of 2006, decided on 27.12.2007. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Arts. 184 (3) & 199--Islamabad Land Disposal Regulation, 2005--Regl. 5--Suo Moto Notice--Directive of Prime Minister for allotment of residential plots--Determining the eligibility criteria for allocation of plots--Validity--Privileges--Fulfillment of eligibility criteria--Government is always empowered to grant appropriate privileges to its employees within the scope of law and its authority but nevertheless such power, Government is not under legal or Constitutional obligation to establish housing schemes and provide residential or commercial plots to its employees and it is not a Constitutional or legal right of any person in the service of Pakistan to claim such privilege in addiction to the terms and conditions of the service provided under ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Order of Wafaqi Mohtasib accepting grievance petition

By
  PLJ 2003  Peshawar  336 (DB) Present :  SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN AND QAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI, JJ. PAKISTAN  RAILWAYS through DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT  PAKISTAN  RAILWAYS, PESHAWAR-Petitioner versus SAID MUHAMMAD and 2 others-Respondents W.P. No. 863 of 2000, decided on 14.4.2003. ( i ) Establishment of the Office of  Wafaqi   Mohtasib  (Ombudsman)  Order (1 of 1983)-- —-S. 32-Order of  Wafaqi   Mohtasib  accepting grievance petition of  respondent (employee) and holding him entitled to ' full  pension/commutation on the post, assailed—Respondent having been  retired from service on 27.8.1997, could not have been reverted to his  substantive post on 26.3.1998, after about 7 months of his retirement- Petitioner failed to prefer representation before President in terms of  . S. 32 of the Order (1 of 1983) and thus, did not avail remedy provided by  law-Another colleague of respondent who in sim...
Post a Comment
Read more

Proceedings before Wafaqi Mohtasib and President of Pakistan did not constitute Civil Proceedings

By
  PLJ 1999  Karachi  587 Present:  RAStfEED A.  RAZVI,  J.  SHIFAATULLAH QURESHI-Plaintiff Versus FEDERATION OF  PAKISTAN  through SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN, 'RAILWAYS, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD), ISLAMABAD- Defendant  Suit No. 192 of 1992, decided on 20.3.1998.   Limitation Act, 1908-- —-S. 14 Arts. 56 & 115-Limitation~Question of--Plaintiff after dismissal of  his claim for recovery of amount of damage by defendant, instead of filing  suit approached  Wafaqai Mohtasib  who accepting claim of plaintiff  directed defendant to pay amount of damage to plaintiff-President of  Pakistan, on appeal, set aside order of  Wafaqi Mohtasib-Plaintiff  filed  suit for damages and permanent injunction after about 3 years and 10  months from dismissal of his claim by defendants-Plaintiff claimed that  period spent in proceeding before  Wafaqi Mohtasib  should have been  e...
Post a Comment
Read more