FAIZ ULLAH versus GHULAM RASUL
A. XVII, R 3 Punjab Pre-Emission Act (IX of 1991), the evidence suit for non-proof of evidence by the prosecution and pursuant to Appeal XVII, R 3, CPC, it was necessary that the trial party on the preceding date. Should the sentence be adjourned, where the matter was routinely postponed, and without the request or request of any party, there can be no retaliatory action under OXVII, R 3, CPC. After hearing the matter for a long time, there was no scope for deliveries of penalties under OXVII, R3, but the parties to the CPC could not be judged on the technicalities of the procedure. Set aside by the High Court
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
immigration advocates email from Quetta lawyer
