Find a Lawyer

LIAQAT ALI versus ABDUL WADOOD

Article 13 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), VI VI, R 5 Claiming for premature copyright by the court and the lower appellate court, respectively, on the basis that it sought to have the plaintiffs in their plaintiffs raised by the former empire. Did not mention the time and place of the petition but that time and place was not mentioned in the plaintiff even though the plaintiff was mentioned but failed to state the required details of any facts in the application as justified in the indication of the petition. The result of this will prevent the person from proving the same in the evidence under which no person can proceed with his pleas. S and below the two courts order was not upheld by the High Court editing. Dismissed in circumstances

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011

• MEHR ALI v. State 2011 MLD 131
• MUHAMMAD SHER SHAH, SESSIONS JUDGE v. GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary 2011 PLD 131
• BAKHTI JAN v. State 2011 YLR 134
• GUL ZARI KHAN v. ZAFARULLAH 2011 MLD 138
• Pir LIAQAT ALI SHAH v. GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary 2011 PLD 143
• LIAQAT ALI v. Mst. MEHAR SHEDA 2011 PLD 148
• AMIR ZADA v. NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLC 149
• JAMSHED ALI v. State 2011 MLD 157

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2011 →

law firms from Deh Pathaan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes