Find a Lawyer

MUSTAFA KAMAL versus DAUD KHAN

O XLI, R 27 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Preparation of additional evidence and the incorporation of an admission when the fact of the preparation of additional evidence and the admission of the defendant's admission was in fact the knowledge of the applicant and his He was neither brought before the trial court nor before the appellate court, depending on the applicant O XLI, R 27, could not read the error in his case; the relevant material facts to the CPC plaintiff. Had to prove their case on the basis of In the present case, the history of the institution of the suit was established in 1975 and it was decided in 1995 and it was stated that the petition was not taken by the applicants at the relevant time and thus the appellate court as well as the amending court Also rejected it. At the latter stage the leave application for appeal was rejected

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• MUHAMMAD KALEEM RATHORE v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 2009 CLD 212
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary 2009 PLC(CS) 215
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.13 of 2007 2009 PLD 217
• AHMED BROTHER TRADE INTERNATIONAL, WALIABAD GULMIT HUNZA, GILGIT v. COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, RAWALPINDI/ISLAMABAD 2009 SCMR 218
• COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION, ABBOTTABAD v. Alhaj SARDAR BAHADUR KHAN 2009 SCMR 224
• Dr. AZAM SARFRAZ v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division; Islamabad 2009 PLC(CS) 225
• Ch. MAQBOOL AHMED v. CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2009 SCMR 226
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM v. State 2009 SCMR 230

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

best advocate from Eminabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes