Find a Lawyer

ALI SARWAR versus MST. MARYUM

Additional parties regarding the formation of the case on the ALLI, R23 remand agreed with the law's proposal that the rights of the parties should not be defeated on a technical basis and that it constituted material matters for bone determination. And agreed to the remand of the case. Effect of dispute between the parties on the plea The Supreme Appeal Court remanded the trial court to compel additional matters and to determine the questions according to law, the Supreme Appellate Court directed the trial court to record evidence in support of the parties. Provide the appropriate opportunity to present. The search for the remaining points to settle their respective claims and matters in light of this was not contested.

Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010

• MALOOK KHAN v. State 2010 GBLR 75
• KAMARAN KHAN v. SECRETARY FOR KASHMIR AND NORTHERN AREAS AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD 2010 GBLR 79
• KHUSH MALIK v. State 2010 GBLR 83
• GUL NAYAB SHAH v. NAMKEEN SHAH 2010 GBLR 84
• MCB BANK LIMITED through President, MCB Chambers, Karachi v. RIZWAN ALI KHAN 2010 GBLR 88
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Northern Areas, Gilgit v. KHALIDA KHANUM 2010 GBLR 92
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary N.A. Gilgit v. KEHKASHAN BEGUM 2010 GBLR 95
• RESIDENTS OF CHAPORTE BALA through Representatives v. RESIDENTS OF CHAPROTE PAIN through Representatives 2010 GBLR 98

All Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit judgments of 2010 →

best law firm from Darya Khan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes