Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ALIAS MAZEL versus HAJI HAQ DAD

Section 115 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), declaration of Articles 42 and 54 of the suit and injunction restraining jurisdiction claim for wrong reading and non-reading of evidence filed by the claimants as well as the trial court in their favor And the lower appellate court reasoned the plaintiff. Since the four witnesses recorded their lawyer's statement and all the witnesses supported their claim. The defendants failed to identify any illegality in the decisions and orders passed by the two courts, nor can they show any irregularities in the trial court after proper scrutiny of the material available on record. Deal with matters and give reasons for their reasons. It was under the legal obligation of the defendants to state which part of the evidence was misread or read but the defendants failed to do so on which a wrong decision to accept the review request was not. Concurrent decisions and interruptions interfere with the decree passed by two courts have been dismissed in circumstances

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012

• DATSUN MOTORS through Proprietor v. Syed AIN ULLAH AGHA 2012 CLC 1577
• ABDUL GHAFOOR v. SAKHAWAT KHAN 2012 PCrLJ 1583
• VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA v. CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA 2012 MLD 1597
• INTERNATIONAL BUNKERING MIDDLE EAST DMCC through Authorized Attorney v. M. T. TRIDONAWATI 2012 CLD 1611
• INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA v. GHULAM RASOOL 2012 CLC 1645
• ABDUL MAJEED v. THE ACCOUNTABILITY JUDGE-I, QUETTA 2012 PCrLJ 1647
• COMMISSIONER MEKRAN v. Haji ABDUL WAHID 2012 CLD 1659
• ARSHAD MASIH v. THE STATE 2012 PCrLJ 1674

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2012 →

top advocate from Bhirya Road lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes