Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUSTAFA versus DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG

Modification of O VI, R 17 Requests O VI, R 17, CPC's scope of delivery was to be considered independently, however, the defendant had to write in writing by way of referring to the admission of his deceased father. Car laws may not be allowed to be misused. The entry of a new and contradictory defense in a claim filed by a party in a court cannot be canceled without the court's permission because a valuable right was entered in favor of the opposing party on the basis of the entry in the written statement Therefore, the proposed modification based on the stimulus cannot be allowed, respectively

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013

• Mst. AZIM KHATOON v. Mst. JINDAN 2013 YLR 1055
• Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI v. S.H.O. POLICE STATION CANTT. MULTAN 2013 PCrLJ 1055
• LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2013 YLR 1062
• Dr. MASOOD SALEEM v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division 2013 PLC(CS) 1062
• MUHAMMAD ATHAR MAQBOOL v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL 2013 CLC 1068
• MUHAMMAD NADEEM v. KAUKAB WASEEM 2013 CLC 1073
• CAPITAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 2013 CLD 1075
• AMMARIS MEHTAB CHAUDHRY v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, SARGODHA UNIVERSITY 2013 CLC 1080

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2013 →

divorce advocates from Chaininda lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes