Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD INAYAT versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

The Special Relief Act 1877 section 12 law addressed the impression of the thumb on the evidence (1079) and the contentious agreement with its competitor, and there was a clear distinction between the two High Courts that seeking expert opinion in the matter. Denied because such distinction was obvious from the standpoint and according to the record, the controversial contract stamp was purchased from M, while the suit was located in Land ML and the contract was signed on v Scrap, which neither the petition author Had neither the license nor the signature of the relevant registrar having a dispute agreement He had the slightest witness. Contract involved in 8-10 criminal cases The defendant's male was not the problem and one of the defendant was his cousin, the defendant tried to seize the property to refuse to sell the stamped paper of the contentious agreement. The stamp seller's statement did not even include the national ID card number on the controversial contract by the plaintiffs when it was compared to the original. Controversy with the sale of a national ID card was a fake document, which cannot be trusted advocates from Leepa lawyer