Find a Lawyer

NASIR IQBAL BUTT versus MST. SURRIYA BEGUM

The editors of the O VI, R 17 petition claimed that if the proposed modification to their application was allowed under O VI, R 17, CPC, which was rejected by the trial court. If they had done so, they would not be able to direct further evidence; either oral document was accepted by the plaintiff's lawyer. Permission was granted, in order to obtain a certified copy at any time in the presence of the parties' counsel. Abyan on contract terms will not be excluded from the review request.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• ZAHIDA BIBI v. NEAR SULTANA 2009 PLD 168
• ZEESHAN ALI BUTT v. State 2009 MLD 171
• A.N. PESTICIDES through Syed Shaukat Hussain Gillani v. PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Food Agriculture and Live Stock, Islamabad 2009 CLC 173
• INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, through Vice-President I.D.B.P. v. CRYSTAL CHEMICALS LIMITED through Director/Guarantor Crystal Chemical Ltd. and 9 others 2009 PLD 176
• SAEED AHMAD v. T.M.A., MIAN CHANNU through Nazim 2009 CLC 180
• IMTIAZ v. State 2009 PCrLJ 181
• MUHAMMAD UMAIR MIRZA v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, BAHA-UD-DIN ZAKARIA UNIVERSITY, .MULTAN 2009 CLC 184
• DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION DEC BAROTHA CONSTRUCTION, ATTOCK through Project Manager v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, ATTOCK 2009 YLR 185

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

law websites from Kot Bunglow lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes