Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus AISHA SHAHZADI

In the case of section 5, schedules section 9 (3) and 13 restitution, the execution of the former part decree was agreed by the brother of the debtor's brother in connection with the decision to sell the property belonging to the petitioner. Before filing an anti-litigation case, the West could have tried to set aside the previous party's ruling on proper demonstration under section 9 (3) of the Family Courts Act 1964, but had not done so. The debtor did not challenge the previous party decree. The appeal shall not create any right or interest in favor of the brother of the contract salesman, and such a request for a collective and indulgence in Malala was dismissed under the circumstances. \ R \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD SHARIF v. MUKHTARAN BIBI 2010 YLR 203
• TARIQ JAMEEL BUTT v. PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. (PECO) through Managing Director 2010 PLC(CS) 204
• EXPRESS LINK FILLING STATION, KADLATHI, SHEIKHUPURA through Managing Partner v. OIL AND GAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY through Chairman 2010 YLR 206
• Dr. FAUZIA HANEEF v. Dr. RAASHID JAVAID 2010 PLD 206
• ARIF MUKHTAR RANA v. F.O.P 2010 CLD 208
• MUHAMMAD MANSHA v. ASGHAR ALI 2010 CLC 210
• ATTA ULLAH QAMAR v. State 2010 YLR 213
• Before Dr. SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN SYED v. DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT, LAHORE 2010 PLD 214

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

us immigration advocates from Alipur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes