Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM

Specific Relief Act 1877 Sections 8, 42 and 55 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 115 and O. VIII, R1 Law in the Testimony (\ 10 of 1984), Article 133 suit in which the Declaration, Occupation and Mandatory Order Is supported. Claim presents oral and documentary evidence Defendants neither examine the plaintiff's witnesses nor reject them under any trial, dismissed by the trial court, whose decision was upheld by the appellate court. Was retained. The plaintiff and his witnesses were inconsistent; the facts stated in the law were intended to be accepted by the defendants as defendants. The plaintiff's cross-examination was reserved on the request of the defendant \ Advocate, but he was absent on the relevant date which the defendant apparently chose. The plaintiff did not examine the plaintiff when his previous statement on the record was presented, which was covered by his documentary evidence. In fact, the material points, but the defendants did not choose to examine it, after which the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the disputed plot on which the defendant could not record the record and was charged with the sale. The courts placed all the burden on the plaintiff to make the charges. The contract to sell the fake document below was a major mistake in ignoring the fact that the court acknowledged that the plaintiff's oral evidence was inconclusive because the result was not examined by the defendants. The plaintiff's ff version was that this was not a sale agreement. , But whether the defendant was in compliance with this document famous lower court advocate from Pindi bhohri lawyer