MALIK RASHEED-UR-REHMAN versus KHYZAR HAYAT THROUGH L.RS.
The second appeal before the High Court in section 15 (6) was that the following two courts ruled after the proper definition of the parties' evidence on the record, the appellant / tenant failed to identify any evidence which the courts under the High Court had failed to identify. Was wrong or unread. The second appeal had very limited jurisdiction to interfere with the conclusions of the facts, which could not be interfered with by the High Court while the conclusions recorded by the courts could not be interfered with by the High Court. The restriction was invalid, using the powers under section 15 (6) of the Ordinance 1959. That may be the finding
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
