Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MAJEED versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

Section 13 Prior Requirements Reinforcement Demands and Commitment and Ishtas Suits Decided for Premature Stability Defendant's concluding decision was that the plaintiff did not mention knowledge of time and knowledge in the formulation of the solicitation. Was and is not mentioned in the notice of the student E Assad's justification; to file a lawsuit to stop the sale, the prerequisite was that the claimant should apply in his case and mention it in his notice. Will be. According to the date, time and place of the unknown sale and the subsequent jump in the presence of witnesses in accordance with Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991, the court's finding was set aside and the case dismissed. I was allowed to review

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013

• MUHAMMAD SHAFI v. AAMIR HAMEED 2013 CLC 131
• 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 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

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2013 →

immigration advocates contact from Shahpur Chakar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes