Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION versus ABDUL RAZZAQ

Convene e testimony order 1984 Article 49 Omar Plaintiff, who joined the army after his retirement from the army, dismissed the appellant's claim, while the High Court upheld the trial court's order and decision. The plaintiff joined the army with acceptance on 16 8 1943 and his actual date of birth was 16 4 1929 (as he claimed). The entry copy of the Birth Register was issued to the plaintiff on 12 8 1935 as he was under the age of 16 for joining the Army Service, while he demanded from the Civil Court that the order filed by the plaintiff was Through them, public voting against public authorities was obtained. Keeping the birth record, at least this trial should have been applicable because the defendants decide under question, without any imagination, no one can be bound, about Lotus S. Appellant. No explanation was given as to why the plaintiff waited 36 years to obtain the explanation of the decree submitted by the High Court, regarding the date on the school leaving certificate being different from the card in the National Identity Card. Was not convinced. The first appellate court (Additional District Judge) was adjourned to the High Court for good reason while the first appellate court, under which the defendants' case was dismissed, restored those conditions. property advocates from Allahabad lawyer