Find a Lawyer

SHAUKAT HAYAT versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB

Articles 42 and 54 of the Claim Claim and Permanent Order of Defamation claim that he was properly the owner of the case and that the alleged gift of the defendant allegedly by the plaintiff was alien to the law. And this is likely to result in fraud and liability. The plaintiffs' physical possession of the claimed property was still void and canceled and never reached the defendants. In the circumstances, the plaintiff's recordings in the Revenue Record were fictitious, the result of the collective. Department of Revenue officials were ordered along with the plaintiffs filed by the plaintiffs

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE v. State 2010 MLD 229
• MUHAMMAD YASIN v. ABDUL HAMID 2010 CLC 230
• Mian AYAZ ANWAR v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Interior 2010 PLD 230
• FATEH MUHAMMAD v. State 2010 YLR 230
• SHAHID IQBAL v. PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL through Chairman 2010 PLC 237
• SHAKEEL ANWAR HAMDANI v. Syeda SHABANA GILLANI 2010 YLR 238
• KHAN MUHAMMAD v. SECRETARY EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 2010 PLC(CS) 238
• AFTAB AHMED v. MUHAMMAD RIAZ 2010 MLD 240

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

list of advocates from Kotri lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes