Find a Lawyer

BASHIR APIMAD CHAUDHRY versus TAHIR MAHMOOD

Section 12 law In this testimony (10 of 1984), the imposition of two minor witnesses' contract to sell evidence did not entitle the individual to the specific performance of the trial court sale agreement but the decree to recover double the amount sooner. The amount of money, which was granted in favor of it, could not be said in the absence of any plausible explanation or reason for the defendant not presenting another testimony by the plaintiff during the trial. 79 The need was met. Plaintiff's Other Extraordinary Witness Nonproduction Contracted The Original Sale To Sell As An Unacceptable Document The plaintiff failed to prove the original sale agreement during the trial and based on the claim of the plaintiff But there was no legal justification for maintaining judgment and order. Approved by the trial court for recovery of the balance or double the amount of the money, the court was set aside in favor of the plaintiff and the case was dismissed. Appeal was allowed in the circumstances

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE v. GHULAM RASOOL 2011 CLC 661
• Mst. ZAIB-UN-NISA v. REHMAT 2011 PCrLJ 666
• IBADULLAH v. FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE 2011 PLC(CS) 668
• MUHAMMAD JAVED SAGAR v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER 2011 PCrLJ 674
• ABDUL RASHEED v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL 2011 MLD 682
• USMAN NOOR v. State 2011 YLR 686
• NAZAR KHAN v. State 2011 MLD 688
• SAADI AHMAD v. State 2011 YLR 689

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

best law firm from Pasroor lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes