Find a Lawyer

MST. ARJMAND ARA BEGUM versus AYAZ UMER

Article 39 and Q 42 Constituent testimony (of 1984 1984), Article Constitution79 Constitution of Pakistan (3 19733), Article ?55 ()) The plaintiffs sought the facts related to the distribution of joint property by the courts in proof of the document. Was one of the defendants. To the extent of its part, the sale deed was denied in favor of the defendants, to prove the sale agreement, the defendants did not present their witness testimony, the trial court excluded the plaintiff's part. Ordered to distribute the case to the person who allegedly sued. Upon execution, the appellate court amended the order passed by the trial court in which the part of the plaintiff was excluded, whatever decision was pronounced, and the order passed by the appellate court in its amended jurisdiction. In fact, the final results of the facts were recorded by the appellate court as well as by the High Court on the fact that some plaintiffs were minor at the time of the alleged sale, Jesus was not open to any exception to the appellate court. Had properly amended the judgment and decree of the trial court, in which a plaintiff specifically waived In order to prove the authenticity of the sale, the sales process denied the execution, it is necessary for the defendants to present evidence. Failing to testify, which was required by the provisions of Article of79 of the Law, the 1984 defendants failed to identify any legal or factual error to justify interference by the High Court in the amending jurisdiction. Stay. Was denied lawer from fb area from Risalpur lawyer