Find a Lawyer

SAHAR GUL versus SUBAGTAGEEN KHAN

Section 115 tort defamation case for damages Sentencing Trial court and appellate court together decided to file for award of damages in lieu of defamation. The defendant trial court and the appellate court had extensively discussed every aspect of the case and dealt with it in detail, leaving no room for further consideration, the evidence of the material on record by the following courts. Proper consideration was made and no particular mistake was made in this regard. The final conclusions of fact by the following two courts cannot be disturbed by the High Court under the jurisdiction of the amendment under Section 115, CPC, unless the two courts below are required to record the findings of fact. During the course, do not either have false evidence or ignore any material of evidence. When recorded or fact-finding by the two courts below, the record was based only on the evidence contained in Grogan, due to a mistake in law or a procedural error, the trial decision could have a profound effect on the applicant's adverse decisions. I was not able to identify any misreading or non-reading of evidence which could have helped the High Court disadvantage the concurrence of the two courts. To exercise its power as contemplated by Section 115, CPC, and could not be established that the courts below had committed illegal or material misconduct in any jurisdiction. property advocates from Alipur lawyer