Find a Lawyer

REHMAT ALI ALIAS REHMA versus ABDUL MAJID ALIAS MAJA

The plaintiffs / pre-importers who filed the cases against Sections 6 and 13 filed a pre-emption case for being a partner, while Shafta Jar and Pond Bs were also invited to perform. Was with the partner. The trial was attended by the trial court, in which the plaintiff was declared a co-partner in all fields, while the defendant was also found to be a co-partner in all aspects, except that a student's performance trial court had partial The appeal was decided by the Court of Appeal. However, this case could not proceed in view of Syed Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 361), and the federal pre-emption ordinance, 1990's saving clause by the federal government, was termed annexation of Islam. The Shariah court and the case were dismissed. The appellate court did not care to read the trial, the evidence and the trial court's verdict, but if the appellate court had done so, it would appear that the negotiations were regularly requested and the The pre-emptive right of self-determination existed under the decree. The decision and the order passed by the appellate court were set aside, the first appeals filed by both sides will be considered pending and the decision will be made after scrutiny of the records. Parties hear r advocate for immigration from Hub Inds Estate lawyer