Find a Lawyer

RUSTAM versus AURANGZEB

Article 205 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185 (3) Co-Applicant (Applicant) of Suft Land Abolition Co-Swift (Applicant) argued that it was Shafi e partner in suit land, which escaped the notice of fact. Was. All three courts below. Even if a party's request for a partner's participation was not raised in a written statement, the Supreme Court is able to take notice of this fact and decide on the issue of eligibility. Granted accordingly

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2014

• WAHID BAKHSH WATTOO v. PAK AMERICAN FERTILIZERS LIMITED 2014 SCMR 113
• Dr. IMRAN KHATTAK v. Ms. SOFIA WAQAR KHATTAK, PSO TO CHIEF JUSTICE 2014 SCMR 122
• ACTION AGAINST DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDS BY EX-PRIME MINISTER RAJA PARVAIZ ASHRAF 2014 PLD 131
• Ms. SALMA MOOSAJEE v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2014 SCMR 135
• ASIF YOUSAF v. SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, CBR, ISLAMABAD 2014 SCMR 147
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN v. Mst. AISHA 2014 SCMR 151
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOW COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE v. AYESHA WOOLEN MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED 2014 SCMR 154
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SANGRI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2014 SCMR 157

All Supreme Court judgments of 2014 →

immigration advocate from Chiniot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes