Find a Lawyer

MALIK LIAQAT ALI versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

A. XXXVII, Rr 2s & 3 Qunun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts 102 and 103 The defendant sued for recovery of money based on the contemplated note that the Committee had as security for payment of the amount. The promise was handed over to the claimant. ; And that the defendant had paid the members of the committee to process the evidence of the promise vacancy, and that the handing over of the plaintiff by the defendant did not satisfactorily prove that the defendant's proof There is nothing in the record to support this claim. There is no evidence to the contrary. A written document relating to the disposition of any property will be entered as the suit was ordered in this case by the parties. \ R \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• MUHAMMAD AFZAL JAVED v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM 2009 PCrLJ 1302
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1307
• ADNAN YOUSAF v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB through Vice-Chancellor 2009 YLR 1309
• MUHAMMAD IJAZ v. State 2009 PCrLJ 1310
• Mst. SAEEDA ANWAR v. Malik BASHIR AHMAD 2009 MLD 1314
• MUHAMMAD NASEER v. State 2009 YLR 1316
• Mst. IJAZ BEGUM v. STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION 2009 CLD 1317
• F.M.C. UNITED (PVT.)LTD. v. P.O.P. 2009 PCrLJ 1319

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

when you need a advocate from Upper Deval lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes