MUNSIF KHAN ADVOCATE versus MST. KHURSHEED BEGUM
Clauses 3, 12 and 15 of the Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), Articles 11, 35A and O. VII, R 11 Appeal for Recovery of Compensation / Compensation The Plaintiff was requested that the Defendant be his son thereafter. After that he has a son. Daughter from home filed suit against her, her daughter and family due to deliberate false publications under oh VII, R 11, CPC and denied plaintiff for failure to disclose. Was stopped from doing so. Through the principle of reasoning, the defendant claimed that as a plaintiff, the plaintiff had already filed several such cases, which were dismissed by the trial in favor of the plaintiff's immunity. Therefore, he appealed to some authorities to defend his rights. The plaintiff did not publish or circulate false statements in the newspaper to damage the plaintiff's reputation. Or reducing it to others' estimates cannot be considered merely requesting authorities to resolve a complaint because the plaintiff previously sought damages for almost identical similar facts and grounds and 19 other cases for defamation. About eight cases were filed against the plaintiff. In the previous cases the plaintiff was dismissed from his conduct, which was the ordinary plaintiff, who was dragging the plaintiff in various proceedings to recover the compensation / compensation, only to have it tampered with. Without it, there will be no end. The trial court did not impose compensation costs on the plaintiff under section 35A, CPC, which was not appealable by the High Court.
best law firm from Layyah lawyer
