Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMAD versus GHULAM MUSTAFA

Under the heading title42, the two courts considered the final findings of fact by the two parties in favor of the plaintiff after considering the oral and documentary evidence presented by the parties and after considering all the material available on file, Both courts concluded that the change in question and other adjoining circumstances with the General Power of Attorney indicated that the defendants attached themselves to the rights of ownership in the case of disputes and other land. They were allotted by RL II and they had no rights, nor were they interested in the suit land. The dog was kept. Of the allotment and he was interested in the property and the property. The defendants failed to reject this aspect of the case while the plaintiff proved his claim that the finding of both the courts could not be interfered with because the plaintiffs Both of them failed to draw conclusions. The courts below were broad and were based on reasonable reasons for not reading any evidence or reading evidence or any other legal weakness that the defendants did not identify in the decisions that would have allowed the courts to interfere with the amended jurisdiction. Give \ r \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• TAHIRA BEGUM v. Syeda SAIRA AWAIS 2010 MLD 82
• SHAMAS RASHEED v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJARKHAN 2010 YLR 86
• Mst. GHULAM SHAHEENA v. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT 2010 CLC 87
• GHULAM RASOOL v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL 2010 MLD 88
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN v. DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, SAHIWAL 2010 PCrLJ 89
• MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ v. CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB COOPERATIVE BOARD FOR LIQUIDATION 2010 YLR 91
• HABIB BANK LTD. through President v. Rana MUHAMMAD ASHIQ KHAN 2010 PLC(CS) 93
• M. RASHEED CHAUDHRY v. Mst. CHANDRI 2010 MLD 95

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

tax advocates from Kallat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes