MST. ZARINA FATIMA versus SYED ABDUL MUSSAWWIR SHAH
Section & un 42 Law Evidence (of 10 of 1984), Decisions for Declaration and Occupation of the Contract Disposal of the Contract of the 113 Suit Agreement was settled and the agreement was settled on the issue of settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the plaintiff's ownership of some part of the land was recognized and the defendant agreed to hand over the said portion to the plaintiff, but only after the defendant refused to comply with the said agreement. The plaintiff sued the defendant in agreement with the substance of the agreement. The parties were never challenged by the plaintiff's counsel that the plaintiff claimed that the defendants had already been admitted, submitting the provisions of Article 113 of the Law Evidence, 1984 The view does not need to be proved by other evidence, especially since the author and his or her minor witnesses accepted its implementation. In fact, there is no need to prove any action in which the parties or their The agents agreed to acknowledge the defendants could not award the trial under the agreement and The appellate court dismissed the verdict and order. The court, in its written statement, completely disregarded the admission, also in its written statement and during cross-examination and an unconstitutional order was passed, expressly contrary to the provisions of Article 113 of the Martyrdom Act. The breach was the Appellate Decision and Order of the 1984 Appeal. The court was set aside and the trial court, which passed the correct definition of the evidence,
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
