Find a Lawyer

GUL MARJAN versus ATTA MUHAMMAD KHAN

Ordinarily, the Civil Procedure Code Order VI VI, R 17, O 1, R 10 and Section 96 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901), Section 8 did not prove that the defendants were entitled to the property in question. But they claimed that such property was their original property. And they were entitled to 2/3 of the same defendant in the written statement, claiming that the property seller was the defendant who had purchased it through open auction and written statement to PTO and PTD After submission, their plaintiff was amended, their plaintiff was amended. Claiming to own 1/2 part of the jury award through private settlement and under Section 8, Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, the plaintiff's evidence suffered serious legal and fact-based litigation. The defendant's trial was not guaranteed in the plaintiff's decision because there was too much atrocity. In addition to the oral and documentary evidence in favor of the defendants, the admission of the plaintiffs that the vendor's plaintiff had also demolished the property H. Auction and this seller had sold half of the property in favor of the plaintiff and he had a third In the favor of the party who sold his other half of the property which was not in accordance with it, the claimant's claim cannot be resolved in the absence of this requirement. The plaintiffs failed to prove their right to the property in this way, leaving the trial court's order dismissing their case pending the approval of the appeal. famous high court advocate from Tando Allahyar lawyer