Find a Lawyer

RAZA ALI versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT MULTAN

In addition to the section 42 lawsuit claiming to be the owner of the disputed land, the variable adopted in 1964 challenged the plaintiffs' orders against the defendants of the Revenue Courts on the issue. I never accepted myself as a seller in my interest. Rather, it challenged the alleged sale and conversion of the fraud and misrepresentation plea. The trial court dismissed the claim of the appellate court on appeal, finding that both courts had the same validity based on the best scrutiny of the evidence. The High Court refused to interfere with the review jurisdiction, which was not arbitrary and failed to identify any misrepresentation or evidence reading in the falsified plaintiff's uncontested verdicts.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ v. State 2010 PCrLJ 746
• SUMERA YASMIN v. D.C.O. 2010 PLC(CS) 746
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. State 2010 YLR 747
• MUMTAZ alias TAJU v. State 2010 YLR 749
• MUHAMMAD ASIM v. State 2010 YLR 751
• Rana MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN v. DISTRICT OFFICER REVENUE/DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD 2010 YLR 754
• Rai IMTIAZ HUSSAIN v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB LG AND CD 2010 CLC 756
• AHMAD KHAN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 757

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Leepa lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes