Find a Lawyer

MEER AFZAL versus MST. KHAPAIRAY

Section 115 High Court Jurisdiction Amendment Jurisdiction The process of scrutinizing the evidence to disturb the fact that the exercise of powers under section 115 was neither legitimate nor guaranteed by law. The hearing has been conducted by the High Court in search of the facts of the proceedings. The jurisdiction to review it can only be justified if such finding resulted in a poor definition of evidence on the record or to make a false or incorrect conclusion on any question of fact by the following courts. Was not open to interference with the High Court's exercise of its jurisdiction. The following courts were neither based on false reading or non-reading of evidence nor did any high court jurisdiction guarantee the defect of any jurisdiction which excluded civil revisionary substance from the amended jurisdiction. had gone.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013

• GUL KHAN v. ASGHAR KHAN 2013 PCrLJ 1318
• ABDUL WAHID v. State 2013 YLR 1320
• KHITAM-UL-HAQ v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2013 YLR 1325
• TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR v. YAQOOB SHAH 2013 CLC 1328
• MOMEEN KHAN v. KHANZADA 2013 YLR 1344
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. State 2013 YLR 1357
• IRFAN AHMAD v. GOMAL UNIVERSITY, D.I. KHAN 2013 MLD 1365
• GUL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE (LIMITED), KOHAT v. NAIK MUHAMMAD 2013 CLC 1371

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2013 →

criminal advocate from Morgah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes