Find a Lawyer

MST. SAIQA versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, SINDH

Sections 114 and 47 of the Reviewing Objects and the applicants / respondents for the first time sought review on the ground that their allegations made by the applicant were not denied by the court. Because the scope of the order review was limited and the purpose of the review was to remove serious error resulting from abortion in court, which was not taken at the first stage and could not be taken at a later stage. ? In fact, there was another view of the matter. Possible or the conclusions reached in the judgment were invalid, there will be no reasonable basis for review unless the court fails to consider the important question of law, after considering the material on record, the impugned order was passed.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• ALLIED BANK LTD. v. M. SHAFI 2011 MLD 371
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI v. HABIB BANK LTD. 2011 CLD 373
• HAKIM ALI v. State 2011 MLD 376
• PIR BUX v. State 2011 PCrLJ 380
• Mst. SHADAB PERVEZ v. Mst. AMBREEN PERVEZ 2011 PLD 382
• Syed HAKIM ALI SHAH v. State 2011 YLR 384
• ZURASH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad 2011 PLD 385
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF v. State 2011 MLD 389

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Chowk Munda lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes