Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE

Responding to a Section 13 Trial Trial The respondents had not previously affirmed this high right to pre-emption in dispute property, but had not previously disclosed that they had In the presence of the informant, pre-emptive right was declared. He also did not prove the student publication in accordance with the law because he admitted in his statement that he could not specify exactly whether the notice of the students appearing in court was the same. Were sent to the responding clerk who wrote the notice. The matter was not presented as evidence in this case before the emperor did not successfully prove to the club according to the law that the lower courts were reluctant to seek their fact and they decided in their decisions and orders in the case. Had taken into account all the material aspects of No interference was sought in the amending jurisdiction to dismiss the revision request in the circumstances

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013

• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS v. NAZAR AHMED 2013 YLR 139
• SAJID IQBAL v. State 2013 MLD 140
• Syed IMRAN ALI SHAH v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Human Resources (HR) Division, Islamabad 2013 PLC 143
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ v. THE STATE 2013 MLD 145
• MUHAMMAD YASEEN v. State 2013 PCrLJ 153
• AKHTAR ALI v. State 2013 YLR 154
• WAHEED AHMED v. NASEEM SADIQ 2013 PLC(CS) 155
• MUHAMMAD SAQIB ABBASI v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Local Government, Lahore 2013 CLC 158

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2013 →

best law firms from Kundina lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes