Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HAYAT versus STATE

The Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), the revised jurisdiction to retain section 115 suit declarations, the exercise of the defendants / defendants, in a previous case, claimed that the present plaintiffs / applicants had their own The land was sold to them and both the plaintiffs / applicants appeared before the trial court and it was decided to sue the defendants / plaintiffs in the first case, alleging that the plaintiff was deaf and dumb. Was approved in favor of the respondents. Did not appear before the trial court and did not give a statement of consent, on the basis of which the judgment of the first case was decided in favor of the respondents was sufficiently contained in the material record that the plaintiff / applicant's husband remained involved in all proceedings and The day came when he denied that the written statement was filed in a previous case and that Mac was included by a lawyer advocate. E Reporters cannot claim that in these circumstances, the respondents The decree was obtained through fraud by the Judicial Record fully supporting the defendant's case that the earlier case. The petitioner was the claimant's status as a private court with her husband and their confessions were recorded. The plaintiffs / applicants failed to prove that their decision and decree challenged in the latest case were obtained through fraud or impersonation or as a result of a false statement or lion reading by the courts. The verdict against this decision was given below, as is, the evidence on record best advocate from Swat lawyer