Find a Lawyer

AMANULLAH KHAN versus MST. AYESHA HAFEEZ

Under the Special Performance and Temporary Order, Section 12 Civil Code (V of 1908), the trial and appellate courts dismissed the case and refused to issue a decree. The plaintiff did not prove that no documentary proof of payment to the defendant could be brought on record. A lawful owner cannot be barred from separating property on a mere allegation because the seller's contract did not create a union rights, the conclusions of the harmony could not be interfered with. Practices of jurisdiction under section 115, CPC revision barred

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD ZIA-UR-REHMAN v. S.H.O., POLICE STATION ACE, KHANEWAL 2010 MLD 1770
• MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1775
• MUHAMMAD NOSHAD v. State 2010 YLR 1780
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1782
• MUHAMMAD AHMAD v. MUHAMMAD SARDAR 2010 MLD 1784
• GHULAM FATIMA v. DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH 2010 CLC 1786
• MAHMOOD alias MOODA v. State 2010 YLR 1789
• SHARIFAN BANO v. MUHAMMAD BASHIR 2010 CLC 1790

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

female advocates from Burewala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes