Find a Lawyer

SYED MUHAMMAD SHAH versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAISALABAD

Article 84 Specific Relief Act (Constitution of 1877), Section 12 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Request Second Comparison Claim Specific Performance of Contract for Sale (Respondent) / Applicant was the alleged contract to sell Was not proven (Plaintiff) / Respondents and signatures have already been compared, second comparison would be disappointing to the trial court proceedings, the signatures were already compiled by the forensic science laboratory, but the second comparison Was not stopped under. This can be done depending on the law and the requirements of the matter. The High Court directed the plaintiff to present the sale agreement to the trial court so that the defendant could also have a look at the dismissal of the same constitutional petition, accordingly.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013

• GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB v. Raja MUHAMMAD JAVED 2013 PLC(CS) 459
• COLLECTOR, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, MULTAN v. TREND INTERNATIONAL 2013 PTD 463
• GAKHAR HUSSAIN v. Mst. SURAYYA BEGUM 2013 PLD 464
• NIB BANK LTD. v. PRESIDING OFFICER, DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT, AT SIALKOT 2013 PLD 468
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ v. JUDGE FAMILY COURT 2013 CLC 470
• MAHBOOB HUSSAIN MALIK v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 2013 YLR 473
• GHULAM RAZA v. State 2013 PLD 473
• TEHSIL COUNCIL KAMALIA v. BOOTA MASIH 2013 YLR 476

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2013 →

best law firm from Hangu lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes