Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

Plaintiffs were always present to prove Talibas to terminate the trial for Articles 6 and 13, Plaintiff also examined two witnesses (as their own witness) in addition to their statement, but they were At the time, the date could not be substantiated and the place where the alleged abduction was made was not mentioned and it could not be proved that the written notice in connection with the Talab Ashd was not sent to the plaintiff. Nor was the statement mentioned at that time and place, the knowledge of the need for sales of Toulouse could not have been fulfilled under the circumstances; Whatever was said, it was also ignored by the trial court and the appellate court rightly dismissed the case filed by the plaintiff.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• CHIMERA (PVT.) Limited through Chief Executive v. HABIB BANK LIMITED 2010 CLD 582
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL v. AMIR YAR 2010 PLD 583
• FATIMA BIBI v. State 2010 PCrLJ 583
• ABDUR RASHEED v. DUBEER AHMED 2010 CLC 583
• Sayyeda ROBINA SHAHAB NAQVI v. Sayyed SAFDAR HUSSAIN 2010 MLD 585
• QASIR JAVED v. S.H.O., POLICE STATION SADDAR JHELUM 2010 PCrLJ 587
• USAMA JAVAID v. CHAIRMAN, HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION 2010 MLD 588
• MUHAMMAD AMEEN v. KHADIM HUSSAIN 2010 CLC 588

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

immigration advocates from Sakrand lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes