Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD LATIF versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB

The Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 University of the Punjab Act (IX of 1973), Section 48A, the plaintiff's correction of the date of birth claimed that her correct date of birth was 5 6 1939 but she was admitted in matriculation examination form 5 19. Was entered incorrectly as 1936. The Matric Certificate Trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff, while the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff's older brothers also passed the matriculation examination from the same university. Was 12 1936 and according to the plaintiff's statement, such brother was two or two 1/2 years younger than the plaintiff. Such statement was also endorsed by the plaintiff's uncle who presented it by the plaintiff and his witnesses. The explanation was also explained that the date of birth was inadvertently entered in the matriculation examination admission form and the record of the courts below us was found The service was proved wrong. On the basis of the admission form submitted by the plaintiff, the fact that he was challenged does not mean that he should indicate the circumstances stated by the claimant under which the admission form was inadvertently filled in by him. The facts, such facts remained unconstitutional, the plaintiff's date of birth was not rejected by the brother, only on the evidence-based record was securely concluded that the plaintiff's date of birth was correct and such evidence The evidence was unfounded, the trial court's decisions and orders were set aside and the plaintiff's case. Decree [Age] best advocate from Ukba lawyer