Find a Lawyer

MST. KHURSHID BEGUM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ

A. XLVII, R 1 The review of the applicants' complaint was that they received a notice from the High Court which was filed for hearing on appeal 11 6 1998 but when they approached the High Court on the said date. Have you discovered that this has indeed been the case? 10 was heard on 6 1998 and was thus unambiguously endorsed. The record shows that the matter regularly appeared in the regular caseload for 11 6 1998 and was heard on the said date and both dates ie the date of the hearing (11 6 1998) and the date of the declaration of judgment (18 1998). 1998) The proper names of counsel for the parties appeared in it, the date stated at the upper part of the judgment ie the date of hearing of the appeal on 10 6 1998 was merely a typographical error due to the supervision of the court official. Those who had no material assumption that the appeal was heard on 10 6 1998 (which did not have a hearing date) rejected this record / entry. He was the court which had upheld the original image. The permanent and legal utility of the decision of the High Court, the Record of Court, cannot be disputed with such assumptions, so no such error can be exploited, which, in the present case, is in the interest of the applicants. True as predicted. He was served and the services of a lawyer where his name also appeared on the cause list There is no room for review of the decision; the request for review was dismissed. law firms from Gujar Khan lawyer