Find a Lawyer

HAJI GHULAM MUHAMMAD versus HAJI ANWAR JAN

The XVI, R1 and Section 115 review case decided that the petitioner's request to have the witnesses named in the list of witnesses rather than the witnesses in the appeal was the petitioner's request that the witness approved by the High Court. An offender who was a fugitive in the case, thus, could not be obtained. Such a request would not fall under the scope of the trial court's order either in oral or documentary documents or refuse to admit the evidence. It has been decided that the High Court dismissed the request for review, which is the reason why they were trying to change the situation. Was not placed.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012

• ABDUL SALAM KHAN v. MUHAMMAD YAQOOB BANGULZAI 2012 YLR 2379
• ISHAQ GEORGE v. State 2012 YLR 2551
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD v. FIDA HUSSAIN 2012 YLR 2560
• FIDA HUSSAIN v. GHULAM MUHAMMAD 2012 YLR 2625
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR v. State 2012 YLR 2686
• OBAIDULLAH v. MIR MUHAMMAD ALI RIND 2012 PLD 1
• Senator ABDUL MALIK v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics, Islamabad 2012 PLD 11
• PAKISTAN MOBILE COMMUNICATION LTD., (MOBILINK) ISLAMABAD v. NAIMATULLAH ACHAKZAI 2012 CLC 12

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2012 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Utror lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes