Find a Lawyer

GUL ZAMAN versus MUHAMMAD USMAN

O XLI, R 31 Scope The jurisdiction was necessary for the jurisdiction to ensure that there was fair justice and the parties did not face any prejudice by the appellate court, neither in the present case, nor in the case. Neither the record nor the points of determination were determined by the trial court and the appellate court was bound to consider and discuss the evidence of both parties; the impugned verdict passed by the appellate court was not mechanically recorded. Amendment accepted and rejected without debate and judgment and order passed by appellate court The name was put aside and remand was obtained after writing the judgment in accordance with the law.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• SHAD MUHAMMAD v. Mst. SARWARA 2015 MLD 582
• SAJJAD AHMAD v. State 2015 PCrLJ 585
• Malik MOHSIN SAJJAD v. UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR through Vice-Chancellor 2015 YLR 590
• ANWARZEB v. MUSHTAQ AHMED 2015 MLD 601
• ISMAIL KHAN v. State 2015 PCrLJ 604
• Mst. ZOHRA FALAK v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2015 CLC 616
• FAZAL KHALIQ v. State 2015 YLR 624
• HUMAYUN KHAN v. ZAREEN KHAN 2015 CLC 628

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

registration advocate from Kot Bunglow lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes