Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE

S 13 was not told about the trial and the dismissal as well as the dismissal case for possession by pre-emption that the plaintiff did not disclose after finding out about the case. Was. That they declared their right to exist in the presence of the informant and presented only one witness in the presence of the informant, who was the informant, they should be declared in the presence of the informant, and in the two witnesses, the accused must also be declared as guilty. Was not performed. According to the law and according to the notice, a clerk wrote in writing that was not presented as a witness The plaintiff did not successfully prove the pool according to the law.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013

• Rana KHALIL AHMAD v. MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE 2013 PLD 23
• MUHAMMAD ADNAN (MUHAMMAD IRFAN) v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE HAFIZABAD 2013 CLD 25
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ v. ABDUL REHMAN 2013 YLR 27
• NOOR v. Mst. SATTAN 2013 PLD 30
• ASHIQ HUSSAIN v. State 2013 YLR 34
• NISHAT CHUNIAN LTD. v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government 2013 CLC 34
• Mst. NUSRAT BANO v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education, Lahore 2013 PLC(CS) 38
• Mst. NADIA BIBI v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2013 PLD 41

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2013 →

property advocate from Mangowal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes