Find a Lawyer

NOORUDDIN versus SAFFAR KHAN

O VII, R 2 The suit for recovery of the respondents adopted the applicant's minor daughter at the age of 1/2 when it is said that the child has reached 8/9 years of age The respondent tried his best to return the child to the house, but to no avail, the respondents filed a recovery charge of Rs 60,000 on the basis of the alleged contract in which It was pointed out that the applicant had accepted the responsibility of caring for the child till his marriage, with no clause in the said contract which the applicant refused. Was. The petitioner dismissed the case against the respondent by dismissing the case against the respondent judge, but bound himself to the refund, but despite the appellate court ruling, it was claimed by the defendant that Has declared it illegal and illegal, dismissing the case up to a limit of Rs 15,000 without mentioning the reasons for reversing the Judge / Trial Court Appeal Court's order in wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. In the review, the High Court set aside the Appellate Court's decision below advocate for immigration from Sohawa District Daska lawyer