Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF versus BULANDA

Specific Relief Act 1877 Section 42: Law Testimony (10 of 1984), Article 163 Respondents / Plaintiffs in Defendant's Decision-Making Declaration Claim that Defendant / Plaintiff Allegedly Execution In the land dispute the sale was not binding on the appellant / respondents / the plaintiff as the sale process was transmitted through a false statement and the respondents / plaintiff voluntarily signed the law. Which led to proceedings under Article 163 of the Convention of Martyrdom 1984 and he was ready to take oath on the defendant / defendant Koran. The defendant / plaintiff took an oath in evidence of his claim that the land in the dispute was leased to the plaintiff / appellant and that the respondent / plaintiff never considered nor intended the defendant. / Sell the land to the appellant The appellant / appellant accepted his statement regarding the defendant / plaintiff, but he refused to take the oath at trial. The court and the appellate court, under Article 163 of the Convention, 1984 (2) based on the legal effect of the judgment, the judgment was pronounced under the trial and the High Court upheld the decision, and the court's order under the review The claimant / appellant in fact acknowledged this claim. The defendant / defendant on the Quran, as a result, the defendant / appellant cannot be allowed to turn this direction so as to challenge the consent decree that is in conformity with the law by the courts. Reached, cannot be intercepted by the Supreme. Court of Appeal best advocate from Daur lawyer