Find a Lawyer

GUL BAHADUR versus GUL AKBAR

Section 115 (1) of the petitioner's petition for the year 2007 was not to contain the record additional documents that were filed with the amended petition in file 2004. Respondents object that such documents cannot be kept on record and are considered after the expiry of the ninth day. Section 115 (1), the approval of the CPC's unnecessary decision / decree, cannot be used as a harmful object to deny sufficient justice. Important documents, such as invalid decisions and orders, were already paired with a review request. There were certified copies of the judicial record of the case attempted to be kept on record, therefore, it cannot be denied that the High Court accepted such request as there would be no premature decision for the respondents. \ r \ n

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012

• RAZIA SULTANA v. SHAHID DURRANI 2012 CLD 512
• MUHAMMAD ALAM v. QALAM BADSHAH 2012 YLR 521
• TAJ MUHAMMAD v. BAHADAR KHAN 2012 MLD 531
• TEHSIL MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, LAKKI MARWAT v. State 2012 CLC 537
• RAHAT KHAN alias RAIT KHAN v. State 2012 PCrLJ 545
• MUHAMMAD RASOOL v. ASLAM KHAN 2012 CLC 551
• MIRA JAN v. DEPUTY LAND COMMISSOINER, MARDAN 2012 YLR 557
• IKRAM ULLAH v. Mst. FARKHANDA HABIB 2012 CLC 569

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2012 →

advocates from Kotri lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes