Find a Lawyer

MIR AJAM KHAN versus MST. QURESHA SULTANA

Article 42 & Q 54 Law Proof (of the 1984 Act of 1984), Section 1299 (G) of the Contract Act (IX of Sun X7272), declaration and occupation of section 444 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 () In retaliation, the plaintiff's husband had obtained the lawyer's suit on the suit land and moved it in his favor. The plaintiff claimed that he was the buyer of the suit land from the original owner while the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the case of oral sale, but the lower appellate court dismissed the case on the basis that the plaintiff himself was a witness. Did not appear in the box and instead her husband appeared in the jurisdiction of the reviewing jurisdiction and the judgment passed by the trial court was reinstated and presented by the defendant. Supporting his case was fatal. If a party had certain facts and circumstances in particular, a negative signal could have been drawn. Oh its absence there was no cast iron mold for such a rule and it depends on the facts of each case. If the circumstances in which a party has relied are proved by the evidence on record, the absence of the party shall not be fatal (derived from the conduct of any party) as no evidence of fact is excluded from the evidence presented in the case. The plaintiffs could, in favor of the land, sell the land based on section 214 of the Contract Act, 1872, according to which it was the principal who could have rejected the transaction. The principal did not inquire into the transaction in favor of the plaintiff. ? In fact documentary evidence from the High Court Plaintiff best advocate from Kot Mithan lawyer