Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HASHAM ANSARI versus BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, KARACHI THROUGH SECRETARY

Section 115 Academic Date of Birth Reform Board issued the Matriculation Certificate referring to the same date which the applicant mentioned in his admission form suit for the correction of date of birth filed by the applicant nine years later. The following was the finding of any defect in the simultaneous investigations of the two courts below: In the absence of a defect in the misrepresentation or reading of evidence in the conclusions of the two courts, the High Court in civil review Interference modification jurisdiction is the same as unlawful exercise of re-examination. In the jurisdiction of the amendment the re-examination of the evidence was not permissible, even if different views could be taken from an unidentified injunction, no unlawful acts or irregularities could be found in the results obtained with the lower courts. Cannot be interfered with by a court. Jurisdiction to review it

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• THE STATE through Deputy Attorney-General v. MUHAMMAD AMIN HAROON 2010 PCrLJ 518
• MUHAMMAD IKHLAQ v. Mst. HAMEEDA NAQVI 2010 MLD 523
• MANZOOR ALI v. State 2010 YLR 523
• Mrs. NEELAM YASMIN ABBASI v. RETURNING OFFICER 2010 MLD 527
• SULTAN SHAH v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Government of Sindh, Revenue Department 2010 YLR 528
• Mst. LAIBA ANTHONY v. State 2010 PCrLJ 531
• ANWAR-UD-DIN v. FAHMIDA AKHTAR 2010 CLC 532
• SHAFQAT ALI v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary 2010 PLC(CS) 536

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

online advocate from Dhatmal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes