Find a Lawyer

FAIZULLAH versus ATTA MUHAMMAD

Under Section 12 (2) and Section 12 (2) of the 151 applicants, the CPC's petition for dismissal of the order in favor of the applicants was dismissed by the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the petitioners / applicants claiming that they were shareholders and owners. Property in the property but they were not enforced as a compulsory party who obtained the decree through fraud and misrepresentation in the collective claim. Volatility petitioners and one of the respondents were closely related and were sharing in common houses. Regarding the changes when their farmers refused to pay their share, in the situation, the applicants could not be trusted ??????? Request for a remand for fraud and misrepresentation after the recording of the evidence. Can be accepted when they establish the first case by showing evidence. Or the source of their title to the property and justifies their ignorance of the pending proceedings Applicants / applicants have failed to produce any specific documents to prove their title. Even to the extent of their contribution to production. Nothing has been recorded to show the applicants' share of applicants / land. The applicants failed to establish a fraud and misrepresentation request. The requests were excluded in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010

• Haji MUHAMMAD AZAM v. State 2010 MLD 1696
• NOOR MUHAMMAD v. NOORUDDIN 2010 MLD 1731
• Haji MULLAH DAD KARIM v. Mir ASSA GUL 2010 YLR 1933
• ABDUL SATTAR v. State 2010 YLR 1946
• KALA KHAN TAREEN, COAL COMPANY DUKI v. MEHRAB KHAN 2010 YLR 1969
• Mst. ZEBA v. SHER MUHAMMAD 2010 YLR 2011
• AMANULLAH v. ROHI MUHAMMAD 2010 YLR 2083
• MUHAMMAD QASIM v. AHSAN RAZA 2010 YLR 2139

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2010 →

top advocates from Arifwala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes