Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AZEEM versus SHABBIR HUSSAIN

Sections 6 and 13 of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) before the High Court and both courts, after proper definition of the evidence on the record, revealed the facts that the applicant proved to be the students' performance. Has failed to do. Under the provisions of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991, it was not expected from the Supreme Court that it would re-examine the evidence for the purpose of reaching any other conclusion without any unusual situation. The unwarranted decision was straightforward. For which no exception could be taken. The appeal was dismissed

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• SAJID SOHAIL v. State 2009 SCMR 356
• AFTAB ALAM v. CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI 2009 SCMR 360
• FAYYAZUDDIN KHAN v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Minorities Affairs D 2009 SCMR 362
• Engineer ZAFAR IQBAL JHAGRA v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2009 PLD 363
• KAMALUDDIN QURESHI v. ALI INTERNATIONAL CO. 2009 PLD 367
• SINDH ABADGARS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED v. SINDH EMPLOYEES\' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, through Commissioner, Karachi 2009 SCMR 367
• ARSALA KHAN v. GULFAM 2009 SCMR 369
• REHMATULLAH KHAN v. GHULAM FARID 2009 SCMR 371

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Mansehra lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes