Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMAD versus MUHAMMAD PARVAIZ

A VII, R 2 O XLI, R 31 and section 115 suit dismissed the plaintiff's case for recovery of money, but the appellate court partially granted the case, and the defendant looked against it. Was seconded. On the decision and order of the appellate court, the appellate court had approached every aspect of the case and it had properly decided the relevant issues and rendered a reasonable decision, which was not open to a legitimate exception for the defendant. The lawyer was not able to prove that the result of the unknown decision. Evidence of misreading or illiteracy or malicious misconduct or material misconduct The appellate court ruled after hearing the evidence on file and discussing all the pros and cons of the case. There was no legal error to conform to. The evidence on file cannot be effectively and reliably identified which can be agreed to agree. The appellate court's findings on the issues in question scanned the entire evidence in the correct context and misled the court's finding. Or cannot be termed arbitrary and this review request was not exempted from further scrutiny. O XLI, R 31, Due to CPC requirements and no prejudice, it did not appear that the defendant was due to the defendant nor could indicate which issue was not properly addressed. Nor can it identify any material piece of evidence that was allegedly neglected or misrepresented. The court below does not appear to have any evidence misrepresentation nor any material pieces of evidence. lawer from fb area from Gambet lawyer