Find a Lawyer

SHAHIQ KHAN versus HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

The final result of the fact, by the two courts below the ownership of the section title 42 title, is in the custody of the evidence in the suspect evidence that he has alleged that it was a stolen vehicle, the plaintiff alleged that The owner of the car claimed he was wrong because of it. Evidence of the same justification of the various types was available to the buyer which a person could present before the court to show his claim to a particular jurisdiction and the plaintiff relied on oral evidence and the documentary evidence should have been oral evidence directly. Documentary evidence should have been original. The documents lacked evidence, which was secondary to the plaintiff's secondary claim in the first and secondly about the confirmation of the purchase from a particular person, and there was no value as it was recorded on the record. The undercarriage vehicle was cut off and the forensic science lab report about the tamper, cut and welded chassis was changed to the welded chassis and engine, the car salesman's identification card was also found to be fake, counterfeit and fake, while the motor company Has stated that the car was never manufactured from it, the two courts below have convinced the plaintiff The reason was not justified which was a failure. To prove its right and vehicle, the High Court refused to grant any exception to the harmony of the two courts. online advocate from Mian Chunnu lawyer