Find a Lawyer

SIKANDAR KHAN versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

Section 13 & Emp 13 Making the Case Tal Tal, proof of the plaintiff claiming to be the owner of the adjacent property and sharing a common share, the trial court filed the case after the lawsuit was filed, but the appellate court Dismissed the claim on the basis that the tabs were not exhibited by the plaintiffs' witnesses presented by the plaintiffs when it was submitted that when Patwari told about the sale of the suit land, the plaintiffs made talks and Witnesses said the witnesses also confirmed the notice. The exact date, although not stated by any of the two witnesses mentioned, was based on the appeal of the appellate court's observation that the non-production of Patwari was fatal, because it was not justified. The plaintiff stated that the claim was made in the presence of members of the Talal Majlis, and both witnesses stated that Patwari had told the plaintiff about the sale under question, which the appellate court insisted on. That the date and time of the first motive was not mentioned in the plaintiff, nor was it stated by the witnesses It was deadly, because according to the evidence on its overall reading, one can have a good idea about the time and method of developing Tibet, and then the performance of the student's eyes that Was done within a fixed period of the day, counting from the date of mutation verification. Evidence on the record, his decision suffered material irregularities in the exercise of his jurisdiction, and the appellate court passed the following order family advocate from Thana Bula Khan lawyer