HAJI MUHAMMAD AFZAL versus MUHAMMAD ZAHID
Locations 6 and 13 were not complying with the Pool Procedure Dialogue Act was required in accordance with the requirements of the law, the date, time and location was to be listed in order to obtain information about the performance and sales transaction. ? Without such a revelation, it would be difficult to determine whether in fact, it was immediately after acquiring knowledge of the sale in the same seat where he learned of this transaction. According to the law and evidence produced by it, the students' compliance also did not establish the performance of the students in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the North West Frontier Province Pre-Impression Act, 1987, so the Appellate Court below Was rightfully rejected. There was no illegal interference or material irregularity in the pre-detention decision, which sought intervention by the High Court. \ r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
pakistani advocates Panjan Kisan lawyer
