Find a Lawyer

HAJI INAYATULLAH BAZAI versus MUHAMMAD AYUB

Section Declaration 42 The plaintiff was listed as the plaintiff for the plaintiff but he was neither in possession nor part of the property because of the joint nature of the property in the trial and dispute between the parties. Failure to understand the matter involved. In deciding the case, the unlawful appellate court had passed a verdict on good speech and reasonable reasoning; the appellate court had clearly defined and distinguished the suit property and property from the defendant. The defendant was completely different from the claimant. The plaintiff has been in possession of the suit since the day it directly sought and approved the same declaration of ownership by the uncontested decision passed by the appellate court, and the defendant's evidence varied and his At the request of the suit the land was occupied. The parties did not have the legs to stand up and their requests were bound and they could appellate court properly appreciate the evidence on which the review was dismissed.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2015

• DILMURAD DILJAN alias DILO v. State 2015 PCrLJ 1389
• ZULIKHA BIBI v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 2015 YLR 1584
• ABDUL HAFEEZ LUNI v. The STATE through NAB 2015 YLR 1596
• KHUDA BUKHSH v. HAMZA 2015 YLR 1621
• SHAHAB-UD-DIN v. GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2015 PLC(CS) 22
• ADAM v. Mst. ABIDA 2015 PLD 26
• Mst. NASEEM v. ALI AKBAR 2015 PLD 30
• RIZWAN AHMAD BALOCH v. ARSHAD KHAN 2015 PLD 41

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2015 →

divorce advocates from Gujrat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes