Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HAYAT versus ZAFAR IQBAL

Sections 13 and 19 pre-emptive students asserted that the plaintiff's argument was that the student Ashdad was taken notice of by his father by two minor persons (defendants) and this was decided by the minor defendants. Should have told It was claimed that the notice of publication of only and only students was sent in the name of all the shopkeepers; the service of correcting the notice of notice to the defendants including the simultaneous vendor was controversial. And without its production, it could not be proved that the pre-emptive right was neither transferable nor divisible, and the claim of pre-emptive property had to be claimed on the entire vacant property. I was rejected.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014

• SULEMAN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 299
• ISRAR HUSSAIN v. D.C.O. 2014 PLC(CS) 300
• JAMSHAID ALI KHAN v. GHULAM SAYED 2014 YLR 301
• State v. MUHAMMAD BOOTA 2014 YLR 306
• SAMAD RUBBER WORKS (PVT.) LIMITED v. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1936 2014 PLC 308
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR v. MEMBER (JUDL: II), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE 2014 MLD 313
• AHTSHAM-UL-HAQ v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COLLEGES SECRETARIAT, OKARA 2014 PLC(CS) 315
• SHAHIDA PARVEEN v. ZAFAR IQBAL 2014 PLD 317

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2014 →

best law firms from Dhoun Kal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes