Find a Lawyer

MST. AEMNA MAI versus NOOR MUHAMMAD

Section 13 and 5 were not to mention the effect, date and time of the plaintiff's plaintiff's case that the case was arbitrarily dismissed. Nor did he nor any witness testify through the plaintiff that he knew of the sale on the said date and dismissed that he had known about the sale nine months ago that the plaintiff's declaration. There is no specific date, or time. That he mentioned in his statement before the sale was empty. No mention was made of Madinah about the location and time of the Talib settlement, the deceased was mentioned in Medina as the date, place and time, except when the time of making the Talib was not correct. The umpire's review may have been removed earlier

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• SARFARAZ AHMAD v. MUHAMMAD YAQOOB 2012 YLR 2063
• EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2012 YLR 2066
• MUHAMMAD HANIF v. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE 2012 YLR 2087
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD v. ANJUMAN MADRASSA ARABIA JAMIA FAROOQIA 2012 YLR 2092
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ v. Mian MUHAMMAD IQBAL 2012 YLR 2107
• NASEEM AKHTAR v. MUHAMMAD AMIN and Abdul Majeed 2012 YLR 2118
• AMJAD BAIG v. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN 2012 YLR 2132
• MUHAMMAD AMIR v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA 2012 YLR 2181

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocates email from Matli lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes