Find a Lawyer

ALLAH DITTA versus SHAMEER

Section 13 Pre-Discrimination Applicants' performance, not to mention the date, time and place of the match, where the pre-emptor found out about the sale of the suit land that the pre-emptor did not take place in the state in the examination. Failure to know where he came from. Impact on Sale As such a divorce law is neither mandatory nor defective, the law does not necessarily require the date, time and place where the former employer sued. The sale of the land becomes known and is mentioned later by witnesses. The importer can neither be allowed to present evidence to prove such a rule nor can the court consider the evidence on the part of the claim.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM v. State 2010 MLD 1264
• UNITRADE IMPEX v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2010 CLC 1267
• DARBAR ABBAS SHAH v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1270
• WARIS ALI v. SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, LAHORE 2010 YLR 1271
• ANJUM PERVAIZ v. GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE 2010 PLC(CS) 1280
• MUHAMMAD ZULQARNAIN SATTI v. Mst. ISMAT FAROOQ 2010 CLC 1281
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS v. State 2010 MLD 1282
• PARVEEN AKHTAR v. EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE 2010 MLD 1292

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

list of advocates from Jalal Pur Priwala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes