Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHIQ KHAN versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Twelfth, R2 Constitution Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 84 The application for a comparison of the plaintiff's signature to the specific performance of the contract proved that the sale and sale agreement The execution proved to be presented to the plaintiff and the scribe and two minor witnesses of the contract appeared in the testimony box for a plaintiff's testimony and there was no flaw in the evidence presented by the defendants. This was a specific issue in relation to the implementation of the agreement. The request to compare the signatures was not decided and no case was constituted or the non-formation was not fatal. The defendant did not highlight any prejudice arising out of the absence of a particular case. En Unlike the law, the application was not decided by the plaintiffs' witnesses who failed to examine the material facts stated in the examination by the Chief who did not jw.org ur cross-examination on material points So, his statement was acknowledged to the extent that the appeal was dismissed

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014

• LORY VIE PIMENTEL v. SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.IV, LAHORE 2014 PCrLJ 754
• MUHAMMAD ATTIQ-UR-REHMAN v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment 2014 PLC(CS) 759
• NIB BANK LTD. v. HIGHNOON TEXTILE LTD. 2014 CLD 763
• HAIDER ALI KHAN v. RAZIA BEGUM 2014 MLD 766
• ZAHRA HAIDER v. FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE 2014 PLC(CS) 773
• MUHAMMAD KHALIQ v. JALAL DIN 2014 CLC 773
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD v. Mian ABDUL KARIM 2014 YLR 774
• ZULQAR HUSSAIN v. TANVIR AHMAD GILL, ADMIN OFFICER, SNGP 2014 PCrLJ 779

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2014 →

best advocate from Kakul lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes