Find a Lawyer

MST. IZZAT ARA versus MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE

Section 12 (2) of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), challenging deception on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation for the possession of section 8 suit, application under section 12 (2), 13 of the applicants. Was filed years later. He was burdened with the responsibility of explaining the delay in filing the application because Blood said that the applicants had acquired knowledge of such fraud in 2004, when the application was filed on 12-12 2005. , Shall not exclude such burden for this purpose. Their eligibility for application under Section 12 (2), CPC

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• MUHAMMAD PANJAL v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION RANIPUR, KHAIRPUR 2010 YLR 201
• MOULA BUX v. State 2010 PLD 204
• CONTROLLER (NOW DIRECTOR), KARACHI v. NADEEM ENTERPRISES through Proprietor 2010 YLR 205
• INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LTD. through Senior Manager Administration and Security v. COMMISSIONER, SINDH EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION 2010 PLC 207
• SAJID ALI SHAH v. State 2010 PCrLJ 211
• SALMAN RAZA KHAN v. State 2010 MLD 212
• Raja ABDUL HAMEED v. SHEHRI-CBE through Vice-Chairperson 2010 PLD 213
• MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL v. State 2010 YLR 214

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

female advocates from Kech lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes