Find a Lawyer

MST. GOHAR SULTAN versus GUL WARIS KHAN

Wendy defendant was charged in connection with the sale of a section 4 law testimony (10 of 1984), Article 129 (g) motion, which was affirmed by the appellate court through the trial. Went, the plaintiff did not present the alleged donor. To prove that the transaction was a gift and not a sale, the alleged donor was a living ad, but such strong evidence was withheld by the defendant for the reasons that led him to Article 129 of the Conan Martyrs, 1984 ( G) was presented accordingly. It would be that when the alleged donor was presented, the statement should be against the defendant. There was no relationship between the alleged donor advertising defendant, on which the defendant could be given a suit property gift, illegal reading of false letters or evidence or in the guise of unethical irregularities or interference with invalid judgment / injunction. Or legal scope / error found best advocate from Daud Khel lawyer