Find a Lawyer

NAZIR AHMAD versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

O The XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 interchangeable device-based recovery suit requesting the defendant to appear and defend the plaintiff's argument that the leave to appear and defend this suit was subject to certain payment. Should or should not be allowed to give reasonable security, any security or payment of any kind is necessary for leave to appear and defend by the trial court; applying for leave in defense is relevant to the contents of the file. Given that the unclean order was approved and cannot be declared illegal. Or one of the edits was removed illegally

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014

• SHAMA KHAN ZAFAR v. DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, LODHRAN 2014 PLC(CS) 948
• MARRAYAM MAI v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER 2014 MLD 950
• ASHFAQ AHMED alias GOGA v. State 2014 YLR 954
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH KHAN alias MUHAMMAD KHAN v. AKHTAR HUSSAIN 2014 CLD 954
• MUHAMMAD JAVED alias JUNAID v. State 2014 PCrLJ 956
• DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PAKISTAN LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi 2014 MLD 957
• Mst. MUMTAZ GULSHAN v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Deputy Commissioner/DOR, Sargodha 2014 YLR 958
• Malik SHAHBAZ ALI v. SCS 2014 CLC 962

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2014 →

famous supreme court advocate from Shujabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes