Find a Lawyer

SHAMIR versus KHAN

The trial court for the declaration with the section possession42 case ruled in favor of the plaintiff that there was no set of measles numbers mentioned in favor of the defendant, in which the plaintiff's allotted numbers Reads allocation orders in the jacket position with. In fact, the land allotted to the claimant was diverted to the defendant's favor and. Therefore, since the mutation was absolutely illegal, the person who made the same preparation at the time of Khatuni's preparation should have known that the Claimant High Court had previously been assigned a stabilization number, in which case he dismissed the application.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• ALI HASHAM v. Mst. ISHRAT BANO 2009 YLR 190
• MUHAMMAD AZAM v. State 2009 YLR 193
• MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR v. State 2009 PCrLJ 195
• ZAHEER HUSSAIN ADIL v. PUNJAB COUNCIL OF THE ARTS through Executive Director 2009 PLD 197
• SAFE WAY through Proprietor v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, (APPRAISEMENT GROUP-I), LAHORE 2009 PTD 201
• GHULAM ABBAS v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER 2009 YLR 201
• Ch. TARIQ BASHIR CHEEMA v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government and Community Development Department, Lahor 2009 PLD 204
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL v. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF 2009 YLR 207

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

us immigration advocates from Kotla Jam lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes