Find a Lawyer

NAJIBULLAH KHAN versus FAZAL KARIM

Canaan Martyrdom Order 1984 Article 163 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The parties agreed that if the plaintiffs took oath from the Holy Quran, their case should be declared invalid which was present in the court. Took the oath from the Holy Quran. As a result, he was denied the claim that his claim was rejected by the defendants' revocation of such decree. The defendants were requested that they disagree with the Oath-based trial decision, and that the decision was not accepted on the grounds that the plaintiffs violated the Oath. Article 163, the law was not bound by these testimonies. The presumption of accuracy was linked to court records which stated that defendant had presented to defendants in the presence of his lawyer, which was accepted by him. In that order it was also stated that the defendants agreed and offered that if the plaintiffs had followed the Qur'an, in their case the decision should be rejected that the operation of the AOTH was violated by Article 1 by. The law had been taken before the High Court in 1984, and it was properly settled that the court made the decision in accordance with the Qur'anic decision and that too with the defendant's agreement, in question. There was no justification to interfere with his decision; the appeal was denied in the circumstances immigration advocates contact from South Wazirstan lawyer