Find a Lawyer

ASMATULLAH versus ALLAH NAWAZ

Section 21 law applied to this testimony (10 of 1984), Arts 114 and 133 Estoppel, the fact was not examined to the effect the dispute was in relation to the death history of a shopkeeper pre-emptor claimed that after filing a death suit. However, while the shopkeepers claimed that during the trial, prior to filing the case, the pre-emptor filed a petition as a party to the succession of the successor, which was heard, After the trial, after the trial, the deceased salesman died. The appellate court overturned the trial court's finding and dismissed the case. Those witnesses testified in their testimony that their date of death was not inspected, so it was proved that they would be justified. He died either before the trial or before posting because he was a partner in the sale transaction and other vendors cannot be ignored by the fact that the deceased seller's legal legacy is on the record. The time allowed to bring, not to raise such objections from the shopkeepers, was in fact a resignation, which prevented them from raising such a request in which some of the found sentences or facts were reiterated. Was. The Chief of Examination could not be considered to promote or endorse a party's case when, on cross-examination, the version and statement of a witness demonstrated that he had put various questions wrongly and incorrectly. Deposed and responded to the same day, month and season, all the witnesses' statements to the shopkeeper know the facts property advocate from Umer Kot lawyer