Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AYAZ KHAN versus ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN

After the trial, after the trial, after the trial, after the trial, after the trial, after the trial, after the trial, after the trial, after the trial was filed. Was. The Purchase also filed a motion to revoke the voluntary decision, saying that the consent decision in this case was fraudulently obtained by the trial court's collusion so that the High Court upheld its prior right of authorization. Remarks were given to defeat. In order to defeat the defendant's preferential right, the trial court and the relevant provisions should also be filed against the presiding officer trial judge, under which the Supreme Court to remove the remarks recorded against the indicator. An appeal was filed in the court, no charges were made against the trial judge. In the case of the cancellation of the consent decree that he was responsible for tampering with the record and in this case, no such charge was mentioned in the memorandum of appeal on the approval of the forged order but it was special It was, therefore, denied that the injunction was obtained by the persons holding the order that the record of the court along with the plaintiff's clerk of court case was tampered with. The offender is due to fellowship with the seller and seller, and this is the first time that the allegations against the trial court in the High Court are confirmed by the High Court, even though the trial judge was ordered to register the case. , But it could be done if there was enough material to take action against it female advocates from Chunian lawyer