Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus KAURU KHAN

Section 13 states the time, date, and place of making the place, although the defendant mentioned it, but by recording their statements, it was not proved by the witnesses that the party anticipated and was obliged to prove it. The matter is, as is alleged and covered, such matters are compiled. This was in accordance with the principle of the second: the Beta at Probata, that is, a party can succeed only according to the person who accused it and proved that the claim made about it was not proved. It was also fatal for the lower court to dismiss the case rightly.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• QADIR BAKHSH v. MEMBER, (CONSOLIDATION) PUNJAB BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE 2011 YLR 3025
• AWAIS KHALID v. JUDGE FAMILY COURT 2011 YLR 3034
• ESA BIN MOEEN v. DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION 2011 YLR 3053
• LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, LDA v. SHAUKAT AND RAZA (PVT.) LTD. 2011 YLR 3060
• Mst. JANNAT v. Mst. MAQSOOD 2011 YLR 3073
• KAUSAR PARVEEN v. RASHEED AHMED 2011 YLR 3077
• QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN v. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB (JUDICIAL-IV) 2011 YLR 3079
• GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Food, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore v. NAEEM SARWAR 2011 YLR 3087

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

criminal advocate from Besham lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes