DR. ABDUL SABOOR versus ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TELEPHONE, DIGITAL SATELLITE TOWN, MIRPURKHAS
Section 54 and Contract 54 Contract Act (IX of 72 1872) Section 2 Claims for permanently dismissing this claim and permanently disconnecting the claimant's telephone connection and making the plaintiff The officers of the telephone company were banned from contacting the plaintiff's telephone which, in addition, was rejected by the follower. Evidence revealed that the telephone company had failed to establish that the telephone installing shop was in the possession of the plaintiff and, on the contrary, the municipal committee owned the telephone company that the plaintiff's affiliate was. Set up With the said shop and was also bound to explain why, without confirming the property documentation, the plaintiff's designated contract between the telephone number company and the plaintiff was not disclosed nor was the signature of any of the company. Were officers of the M&A and therefore they had neither any suggestion nor consideration within M. The High Court set aside the conclusions of the following courts for the elimination of section 2 of the Thames Treaty Act, 1872, and ruled that the plaintiff's review case was allowed, under the circumstances \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
