Find a Lawyer

AHMED versus ALLAH DITTA

Defendants of the Section 6 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), pre-trial litigation, asserted that the defamation suit was not proved because the person who informed the plaintiff's witness about the sale did not appear in court. The only person who reported in advance was the importer needed to appear in court to test the truth of their statement. The plaintiff presented the witness who informed him of the sale, a re-review of the evidence was not valid, so the amending jurisdiction was not different. No legal impairment can be identified in the contempt decision made by the revision court circumstances In the circumstances, revision is excluded.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• NIZAM DIN v. MUHAMMAD ALI 2011 YLR 1193
• ZAHOOR AHMAD v. State 2011 MLD 1195
• Syed MUHAMMAD TARIQ SHAH v. GOVERNMENT\' OF PUNJAB 2011 YLR 1197
• NAVEED MASIH v. State 2011 PCrLJ 1198
• MUMTAZ KHAN v. ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, INVESTIGATION BRANCH, PUNJAB, LAHORE 2011 PCrLJ 1209
• Dr. MULAZIM HUSSAIN SUMRO v. SPECIAL SECRETARY HEALTH, PUNJAB, LAHORE 2011 PLC(CS) 1209
• SULTAN AHMED v. MUHAMMAD AZAM 2011 YLR 1214
• BAREEHA ZAINAB v. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 2011 CLC 1216

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

advocate from Village Sunder lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes