Find a Lawyer

ABDUL HAMEED versus MUHAMNAAD NAJEEB

Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Oaths Act (X of 1873), Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), recording special section affidavit of section 42 suit declaration omitted Went and the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial. At the time of the appeal before the High Court, the Appellant / Plaintiff made an oral request, along with a written request that if the respondent by oath would state on oath that he did not have the transfer For the house in dispute, the appellant did not receive his price, the appellant may be in favor of the respondents, the respondent accepted the offer and made the statement under special oath and the High Court dismissed the appeal in light. ????? Concerning the defendant's statement, the High Court did not record the defendant's statement on the special affidavit, which was a requirement, sections 8 and 11 of the Oath Act, 1873 provided that while recording the evidence There was a special affidavit, but in the present case no evidence was filed when defendant's statement of affidavit was offered, so the defendant's statement should have been similarly recorded. What evidence was recorded and without recording evidence, the oral statement would not be legally binding. The judgment of the appellant of the High Court approved in the appeal was set aside by the court and after the defendant's statement was properly recorded. The case has been called for a fresh decision. immigration advocates contact from Sajawal lawyer