Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ AHMED versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Sections 8, 11 and 13 of the petitioner's counsel stated that if the competing defendant states on oath that he did not commit fraud in obtaining the allotment of the disputed shop, the applicant pressed on his writ petition. There was an offer to take the oath. Authorized by the petitioner's lawyer, as his jurisdiction was neither revoked nor the withdrawal record withdrawn, stating that the remaining applicants and pro forma before the High Court. The defendant was a petitioner prosecuting the writ petition. In the courtroom, when the lawyer presented the presentation statement, which was present in the court, the court recorded it because the lawyer was not authorized by the remaining applicants and pharma respondents and in support of it. On his statement, the petitioner's statement of the remaining applicants was recorded by the petitioners of the court that he was not taken from the court. The petition was submitted by the petitioner and his lawyer and there was no disagreement that the defendants did not accept the offer and the impression on the Qur'anic statement was that it committed any fraud. Did not receive the allotment of the disputed shop, his objection was that the statement of the oath was not recorded by the court. The court must record the statement made by the judge or by another person. Was to be recorded in the presence and under the guidance which is also to be signed. Under the scheme of law, the Judge of the court will be deliberate in all proceedings from the beginning to the end, immigration advocates email from Sihala lawyer