Find a Lawyer

GULDAR SHAH versus MOHABAT SHAH

Section 13 The question of proof required by the evidence of the student, the student and the performance of the test, the Informer failed to prove that the hotel in which he was having tea had received information regarding mutation. Earlier, Informer knew the transaction. And he also informed his father that he had a son and his son, who was his son, before the trial court in connection with the trial. Had properly exercised the jurisdiction which was upheld by the appellate court. The High Court will not interfere with the results unless arbitrary use is exercised at arbitration unless the courts below have properly discussed the evidence on the record and any misrepresentation by the plaintiff or Non-readability was not indicated when modification of the case was rejected

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014

• NAEEM KHAN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 835
• AMEER v. State 2014 PCrLJ 849
• SHEHZAD KHEZAR HAYAT v. State 2014 YLR 849
• GHULAM ABBAS v. State 2014 PCrLJ 858
• ATTA ULLAH v. MUHAMMAD UMAR 2014 MLD 869
• Mst. SAMINA YASMIN v. AMAN ULLAH 2014 CLC 871
• The STATE through Regional Director ANF v. AZIZ-UR-REHMAN 2014 YLR 879
• Dr. Syed ANSAR HUSSAIN SHAH NAQVI v. KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2014 PLC(CS) 879

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2014 →

lawer from fb area from Daharki lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes