Find a Lawyer

SAJJAD AHMAD versus NAEEMA SHAFIQ

Sections 12 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Diversion, Constitutional Circumference of High Court Scope Case on Recovery of Home and Recovery Allowance by Wife, and Husband's Reinstatement of Marital Rights by Family Court And the appellate court cited condemnable reasons in support of their conclusions and there was no case of wrong reading or reading of the evidence unless the above courts were overturned. Existing results cannot be successfully challenged. , Jurisdiction, done without any jurisdiction or the results have been proved on the basis of any evidence, the constitutional petition will not lie in challenging the order that the evidence was not properly appreciated in this case. It is not possible to ascertain the facts listed by the courts of competent jurisdiction. Only worried that another view was possible on the same evidence. The High Court cannot sit in its constitutional jurisdiction as an appeals court, nor can the courts find alternatives to the facts listed on such matters. And generally the Constitution petition did not examine the evidence. Such an exercise was essentially done by the trial court. The court will not interfere with any court-approved decision and decree of a competent jurisdiction because it is within its exclusive jurisdiction to believe or not to believe the evidence. And that the court had given reasons in support of the conclusions that the constitutional petition would not lie in challenging an order in the appeal on the basis of the decision that the case best law firms from Shemier lawyer