Find a Lawyer

SAEE versus MIRZA

Laws of Evidence Order 1984 Arts 58, 54, 55 and 56 can be sued for fraud or acquittal of a verdict or a seizure of the court for possession of the land that the deceased plaintiff has obtained from the civil court order. Was sold by name. No reference was made to this decree or its proceedings by the witnesses, including the appellant / plaintiff, and such evidence was disregarded and the appellate court's claim was rejected by the plaintiff not challenging the order. was done. Article 58, the law of the testimony, 1984 may well indicate that any such judgment, order or decree which was relevant under Art 54, 55 or 56 of the law testimony 1984 and which was proved by the opposing party, Did not submit it. In a written statement, the defendant's specific denial, and his conviction, that he did not authorize anyone to appear in this case, is capable of delivering it, or of fraud or collusion. Was obtained. After this decree is passed, it is necessary for the appellant / plaintiff to prove that the person who is allegedly the result of this trial as a special counsel for the defendant in the trial court proceedings He was so competent. As a special counsel, the decree was set aside best advocate from Hayatabad lawyer