Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD KHAN versus MUHAMMAD ARIF

Making a `` negotiation '' to prosecute under Articles 6 and 13, dismissed the lawsuit which dismissed the plaintiff's claim that although he had proved "student immunity," According to the law appellate, the request was not made. The court ruled that because the trial court had determined that a "student settlement" was made in accordance with the law, it was contrary to the fact that the notice of student disclosure was not given within the stipulated time, Waldetti plaintiff himself said. That they had known about the sale of the dispute three months before the case was filed and the witnesses presented by them had said that the petition was made by the plaintiff the day he knew of the sale. Was not, however, the next day when the date of sale of the knowledge could not be specifically proved and the correct `seek 'ath Tibet of could not be formed, so according to Section 13, the performance of the student body in the framework and period. Could not be set. The plaintiff of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, failed to establish the date and information of the Talib Agreement, the notice of the petitioner was sent, even if it was sent, it would have been sent under section 13 (3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Will not meet the requirement. , 1991 The plaintiff failed to prove both "student molestation" and "student E-Assad", the decision and order passed by the appellate court were set aside and the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. best law firm from Kunjah lawyer