Find a Lawyer

ABDULLAH versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE

Section 115 High Court jurisdiction jurisdictional jurisdiction The following courts, after appearing on every aspect of the matter, put together the conclusions of the Courts under the jurisdiction of the Reality, in the jurisdiction of the High Court. As well as referencing the documentary. The evidence available on the record considered the same debate in keeping with the established principles of the law, and the conclusions drawn by the courts below were based on a true definition of facts, an accurate assessment of the evidence and no weaknesses. ? Pieces of any evidence were either misread or omitted; the two courts were based on a proper scrutiny of the facts and not facing any misreading or reading of the evidence. Had, so it cannot be interrupted. Even if another re-examination of the evidence is possible the view of the revision was excluded.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014

• ABDUL KARIM v. The S.H.O. SARIAB POLICE STATION QUETTA 2014 PCrLJ 240
• ANWAR SHAH v. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, QUETTA 2014 PLC(CS) 250
• AZAD KHAN v. The STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SATELLITE TOWN QUETTA 2014 PCrLJ 256
• ALI JAN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 267
• GHOUS-UD-DIN v. RASHIDA 2014 YLR 293
• Ms. ZAHIDA NAWAZ v. GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Agriculture and Cooperative Department 2014 PLC(CS) 294
• HABIBULLAH v. Mir MANZOOR HUSSAIN 2014 MLD 303
• JALAL UD DIN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 308

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2014 →

immigration advocates email from Kohistan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes