Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IQBAL versus MST. ZAHIDA

Article 5, Schedule Constitution Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional application to maintain the judgment, in the jurisdiction of the courts and the appellant below, was competent to interfere in this case, and until the abortion. It has no constitutional jurisdiction. It was established by a party of justice that the High Court would not normally interfere with these decisions and for that reason would not sign a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction in their exclusive jurisdiction. To accept and deny the evidence.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• AMMAR YASIR ALI v. State 2013 PCrLJ 783
• SOHRAB v. State 2013 YLR 786
• SHAHNAWAZ MALLAH v. RAZA MUHAMMAD BROHI 2013 CLC 792
• ROUSCH (PAKISTAN) POWER LTD. v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR REFUND GROUP-III 2013 PTD 799
• SAJJIDA BIBI v. WASEEM AHMED 2013 YLR 804
• NADEEM ATHAR v. DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK (PAKISTAN) LTD. 2013 CLD 805
• SARWAR INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor v. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MCC PREVENTIVE, AFU JIAP Karachi 2013 PTD 813
• ABDUL LATIF v. Mst. HAKIM ZADI 2013 PCrLJ 813

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

ask a advocate free from Chak 46 lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes