Find a Lawyer

BIBI SAKINA versus HAJI ASMATULLAH

Section 39 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections 15 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), VI VI, R4 Convention of Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 117 and 118 Suite Mutation Entry and Cancellation of Cell Contract The Plaintiff has contended that such admission and contract was the result of fraud, repression and ineffective influence and the Plaintiff shall be bound to confirm that the defendant was in a position to override his will and The plaintiff threatened. And the defendant-led evidence did not disclose the ways in which the plaintiff was threatened or influenced so that he could reject the income on record.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012

• PATOO v. THE STATE 2012 MLD 1358
• EHSANULLAH v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1431
• MAHMOOD AHMED v. State 2012 MLD 1433
• SAID MUHAMMAD v. CHIEF SECRETARY, BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA 2012 PLC(CS) 1450
• SULEMAN v. PIR BAKHSH 2012 CLC 1457
• MUHAMMAD ALAM v. NOOR MUHAMMAD 2012 PCrLJ 1458
• SAMIULLAH v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1477
• Haji ABDUL MAJEED v. AMJAD KHAN 2012 CLC 1483

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2012 →

patent advocate from Gari Mori lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes