Find a Lawyer

MST. ZUBAIDA BEGUM versus HAJI DIN MUHAMMAD

Section 13 Legislative Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 129 (g) Students, ensuring the destiny of the requirements was a trivial fact which was personal to the former umpire attorney without any exception before the Emperor was obliged to prove that He considered the lake confident and convincing. The best evidence in relation to the performance of the evidence sought was per-house and no one else was told about any disability or unreasonable reason why the plaintiff did not appear for the recording of his statement because the attorney pre-emperor's Could not be substituted and the best evidence was available. The plaintiff was either stopped or failed to exclude the same case or failed to change the same shift on the defendants of both courts, and revision was dismissed based on the correct assessment of the material available on file.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014

• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. LUCKY CEMENT LTD. 2014 PTD 383
• ADALAT KHAN v. GUL NAZIR 2014 MLD 390
• GANDAPUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2014 YLR 399
• GANDAPUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2014 CLD 400
• IZZAT KHAN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 404
• AHMAD JAN v. State 2014 MLD 410
• HAYATULLAH v. Mst. AASHU MAI 2014 YLR 425
• MUHAMMAD BILAL v. State 2014 PCrLJ 429

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2014 →

advocate from Naseerabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes