Find a Lawyer

EHSANULLAH KHAN versus SYED ZIA-UD-DIN

Section 39 of the device for termination of the device was invaded by the jurisdiction of the survivor on the grounds of fear that the device could be harshly or harmfully used by the defendant if any The device may be canceled or invalid. The plaintiff; if the device was left unattended, the plaintiff has reasonably suffered serious injury and the court deemed it appropriate to rescind the device to prevent preventive justice under section 39 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, under the title. The cloud had to be removed. Removing a potential risk where the process or device was invalid, then it can be considered invalid without being canceled or isolated, if the device was just invalid then it must be canceled or canceled. Order to remove the obstruction of the plaintiff

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015

• Mst. PARVEEN JAMAL HASSAN v. MUSHTAQ-UR-REHMAN 2015 CLC 1124
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ ARAIN v. MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE KHAN 2015 MLD 1133
• ABDULLAH BHUTTO v. State 2015 PCrLJ 1133
• ZAHID YOUNUS son of Muhammad Younus 2015 CLC 1135
• ABDUL ALEEM BUTT v. BAHRIA FOUNDATION 2015 CLC 1144
• REHMATULLAH alias PAPPU v. State 2015 PCrLJ 1148
• GHULAM AULIA v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2015 PLC(CS) 1149
• MUHAMMAD MUZAMMIL AFZAL BHATTI v. MUHAMMAD SHAHAB SAQIB 2015 CLC 1154

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2015 →

list of supreme court advocates from Abbaspur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes