Find a Lawyer

MIAN TARIQ AZIZ versus MST. GULNAZ JAVED

OVI, R 17 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), in the written statement Section 42 amended by the respondents claiming that they were claiming to be the proprietor of the claimant claiming to be the proprietor / proprietor of the claimant's property. It is in his interest that the former lawyer has contracted. Sell your land with the applicant, but the applicant was unable to pay his share of the contract and did not pay the unsold sale price, the applicant being the defendant, the petitioner VI, R 17 Moved under the CPC, requesting the modification of the written statement, so that the claim was not owned by the defendant in the interest of the defendant, the respondents opposed the petition for modification of the written statement. Applicant's application was dismissed at trial at the hearing, the applicant stated in his written statement The second verification was not presented to the applicants, in the interest of the respondents, but suggested an amendment in which it sought to create a completely new case, which was clearly his Applicants contradicting the former position once recognized the foreclosure property / ownership in the interest of the defendants, could not be allowed to say that they do not own the property in dispute, a clear contradiction in the proposed amendment. A defense request will be submitted. Prior to the defense, which was not lawful under the law, there is no doubt that amendments to the parties' requests should be allowed freely under OVI, R17, CPC, if they have made a new case. Not intended to establish, a immigration advocates phone number from Lakki Marwat lawyer