Find a Lawyer

MUKHTAR AHMAD versus MST. AYESHA

The plaintiffs held the final conclusions of the facts under section 42 by the courts below on the basis that the plaintiff held that he was unlawful and on the basis of fraud, the plaintiff claimed that he purchased the land in the presence of witnesses. But the witnesses were not brought before the trial court in support of their claim, nor was there any sale agreement or change of sale. Both the courts rejected the case and the appeal, respectively. The change in the facts dispute was not endorsed by the defendant on the question of fact. Or the law entered into by the courts of competent jurisdiction, however invalid, cannot be interfered with, unless such findings are based on any evidence, or the defendant and the wrong-party plaintiff are entitled to a piece of material Failure to identify which was neglected or none of the two courts excluded below the decisions passed by the courts below, neither was there any misinterpretation of any evidence nor any evidence. Pieces were ignored while the plaintiff identified the commission of any error during the trial of the plaintiff while deciding matters. Could not or the appeal was dismissed by the courts below review lawer from fb area from Quetta lawyer