Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUHAMMAD versus NOSHA

Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O XX, R 5 suit for the specific performance of the agreement against the trial court's decision, but the appeal court remanded the trial court case on appeal against the trial court's decision. The Appellate Court filed two counts before that the specific fraudulent application was made by the respondent in a written statement. But no specific problem was set. Second, that the trial court should have concluded all the cases in accordance with the provisions of the OX, R5, CPC, but the collective results were legalized immediately in this case, there was a widespread issue in which the defendant. Fraud was requested with Ali. Also the plaintiff, in order to obtain an injunction, had to prove a valid contract in his favor and under the same issue, the defendant, for fraudulent reasons, was obliged to reject it. No separate issue was required on request. During the time the case was set up and at the trial, the defendant was never requested to formulate any additional issue or to correct the related issue, otherwise, the prejudice was not caused by the defendant. The remand of this case on this score / count by non-alignment of the issue on the question of fraud was absolutely false and illegal, on the question of separate findings on each case, which was the Court of Appeal, the court of fact. After considering that one already had to look on the record, whether the conclusion of the trial court, even collectively on all matters, was correct or the material points of dispute between the parties involved should be sought. immigration advocates contact from Charsada lawyer