Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUNIS versus NAZAR AHMED

Articles 42 and 54 and 54 of the suit were announced and the trial court heard the respondents' perpetual injunction and the applicant's appeal against it was dismissed by the court. The respondents were convicted of theft by panchayat. The applicants admit that the defendants had stolen their cattle and were found guilty in a panchayat as they did not present any concrete evidence in this regard. The defendants had stolen the property of the applicants, a criminal case should have been filed by the applicants, saying that there was no legal sanction to declare Syed Panchayat guilty or innocent and the harmony of the following courts. The results were shown by neglecting any part of the record. Appropriate definition of oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, was not sensitive to review The High Court Review request was dismissed \ r \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013

• MUHAMMAD SHOAIB alias SHOABI v. State 2013 YLR 131
• Ch. IRSHAD ALI SAJID v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2013 PLD 133
• MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT v. GHULAM MUHAMMAD 2013 CLC 135
• MUHAMMAD MAJEED v. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN 2013 MLD 135
• 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 RAFIQUE v. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE 2013 YLR 145

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2013 →

online advocate from Kundina lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes