Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus ABDUL RAUF

OVI, R 17 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Appliance for Amendment to the Clause 42 Suite Declaration The plaintiff proposed that the property survey number be replaced by another survey, proposed amendment, conditions. In the case, the nature of the cases and the reasons for action should be suggested to the amendments, should be fair and competent. Not inconsistent and conflicts with efforts to edit cases. The change in the character and color of the matter should not introduce any new cause of change and action and should not be equivalent to defeating any legitimate right of the opposition in the present party, its nature and color being completely changed. will give. The appeal was dismissed

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2012

• MUHAMMAD ADIL KIANI v. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, MANGLA DAM RAISING PROJECT ZONE-II, MIRPUR 2012 CLC 1627
• BABAR ALI v. ARSHAD MEHMOOD 2012 MLD 1697
• HASEEB AKRAM v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MIRPUR (A.K.) 2012 MLD 1718
• ABDUL AZIZ v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY 2012 CLC 1723
• ABDUL RAUF v. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION MANGLA DAM RAISING PROJECT, MIRPUR ZONE-II 2012 CLC 1759
• ZAHEER IQBAL v. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT MIRPUR, AK 2012 PCrLJ 1811
• TALHA SARFRAZ v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2012 CLC 1861
• URFAN QURESHI v. Chaudhary SHOUKAT AZIZ 2012 CLC 1887

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2012 →

female advocates from Tando Mohd Khan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes