Skip to main content

Civil Law

By
This page contains information and links related with Civil Law in Pakistan. If you have any queries feel free to consult us at lawyergolra@gmail.com 

 - Procedure for Proclamation in Civil Law 
http://www.internationalattorney.info/2017/05/15-days-minimum-time-is-required-for.html

 - Interpretation of Limitation Act Provisions
http://www.internationalattorney.info/2016/03/interpretation-of-sections-5-and-14-of.html

- Litigating at Wrong Forum Judgment
http://www.internationalattorney.info/2016/03/time-spent-in-litigation-at-wrong-forum.html

- Duty of Care is on Employer
http://www.internationalattorney.info/2016/03/duty-of-care-is-legal-duty-owed-by.html

- Sale on the basis of Irrevocable Power of Attorney
http://www.internationalattorney.info/2016/03/sale-on-basis-of-irrevocable-power-of.html

- Contents of Plaint are important for rejection
http://www.internationalattorney.info/2016/03/contents-of-plaint-are-important-for.html

- Power of Attorney and Will
http://www.internationalattorney.info/2016/03/there-is-difference-between-power-of.html

- Cancellation of Irrevocable Power of Attorney
http://www.internationalattorney.info/2016/03/cancellation-of-irrevocable-power-of.html

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