Find a Lawyer

SAADULLAH versus SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

Section 42 of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O XIV, R 2 claimed to have retained the claim that he had not been provided with the opportunity to provide evidence and that the suit had been made concurrently after the formation of the initial matter. Was deleted Provincial government, like the property column, was also included as the name of the provincial government as an owner. No allotment was made or filed in favor of the plaintiffs because the owners of the suit property alleged the defendants The claim of rights which was incomplete should not survive the trial. The preliminary legal case was decided at the trial and both parties, after hearing it, concluded that the case was not valid and sustained. Conditions

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014

• PAYO KHAN alias KAKAY v. State 2014 YLR 2270
• TALAT WAHEED KHAN v. GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2014 YLR 2415
• MUHAMMAD QAHIR SHAH v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, through Secretary, Islamabad 2014 YLR 2571
• MUHAMMAD ALAM v. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2014 PLD 1
• ALLAUDDIN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 27
• ABDUL QADIR SHAH v. MUHAMMAD QASIM 2014 PLD 28
• Syed PERVEZ MUSHARRAF v. State 2014 PLD 33
• SAJJAD ALI v. State 2014 YLR 37

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2014 →

power of attorney advocate Shahkot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes