Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAEEM CHOUDHRY versus AZIZ-UR-REHMAN

A. XXXVII, Rr 1, 2 and Annexure B, Form No. 4, must be in the prescribed form and the limitation imposed on the instrument capable of negotiating to inform the other party of the nature of the claim issued by the summary suit. Also beware of. The right to defense and the time within which the leave was to appear and the application to defend the case was to be filed.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• MUHAMMAD USMAN v. State 2013 PCrLJ 1025
• MUNSIF KHAN ADVOCATE v. Mst. KHURSHEED BEGUM 2013 MLD 1032
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias BAJOO v. State 2013 PCrLJ 1034
• ABDUL HAKEEM CHANDIO v. State 2013 YLR 1037
• MUHAMMAD KAMRAN BEHAN v. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION 2013 YLR 1044
• SHAMSUL HAQUE MAHAR v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary 2013 PLC(CS) 1046
• Mrs. HAMIDA ADIL v. SWAMI NARAYAN TEMPLE TRUST, KARACHI 2013 YLR 1049
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN v. State 2013 PCrLJ 1051

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

best advocate from Chowk Azam lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes