Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IRSHAD AND 11 OTHERS versus MST. HANIFA BEGUM ALIAS BAGI

O XX, R 6 The Appellants of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 42, appealed to the appellants to revoke the decision and order of the High Court under which the interests of the appellants. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court, based on the point that if the finding of the fact recorded by the first appellate court contradicts the trial case, the former is preferred. Because there is a difference between trial and first court results. Appellate Court's preference should be given to the results of the first appellate court, if an appellate court for the first time appellate court search will not be preferred if it has been proved by the evidence on record and its support Regular reasoning should be taken regularly. The reason included by the first appellate court, which was contrary to what the applicant sought, will naturally be matched with that finding. The trial court and finding that the first appellate court's finding was based on strong, strong evidence and was credible, then the search for a fist should be preferred, the appellate court's priority could not be given simply on the ground. It was a finding of the present Appellate Court High Court that, in the present case, it simply stated that the first appellate court should be preferred, but there was no comparison between the trial and the results of the first court. The appellate court did not pass the High Court evidence and was trying to compare the two conclusions between the High Court finding, not a viable decision. jobs for advocates from Sidhnoti lawyer