Find a Lawyer

MST. MAHAR ANGIZA versus MST. BAKHTI RAJA

Section 42 The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that she was the legal shareholder of the suit. Defendants' position was that they had received their share in the form of cash and the suit had been decided simultaneously. And the credible evidence that was required by law could not deprive the plaintiff of his right to inherit the alleged money. The courts decided the case according to the law, and exercised their jurisdiction to protect women's rights. The simultaneous investigations of the two courts have revealed any kind of illegal or irregularity under which the decisions of both the courts are neither abortion nor misreading of the evidence on record. The result could not be set below. It does not matter by the High Court unless it is established that they were misleading, defamatory or invalid revision was dismissed.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014

• Mst. BAKHT SABA v. The STATE through Additional Advocate-General 2014 MLD 942
• ABIDULLAH KHAN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 947
• LUTFULLAH v. MUBARAK SHAH 2014 YLR 956
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM v. State 2014 PCrLJ 961
• MUHAMMADULLAH v. State 2014 YLR 964
• SAADIA SAJJAD v. KMU 2014 MLD 971
• ZABIULLAH v. AWAL KHAN 2014 CLC 976
• ALLAH WASAYA v. ABDUR RASHEED 2014 YLR 978

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2014 →

advocates from Mingora lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes