Find a Lawyer

UDHA RAM versus MUHAMMAD MEHTAB

Section 115 Revision Application Under the jurisdiction of the High Court to amend the jurisdiction of the High Court, the concurring results of the two courts were very limited, even when reviewing the evidence, if a different view was possible. If so, the High Court could not have substituted it. See the timely and fact-finding by the courts below when the courts below have misrepresented the evidence on the record or made a legal jurisdiction or there is a material irregularity and illegal operation. ? An application for review of such results was rejected

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• MUHAMMAD RASHEED v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government Department 2014 YLR 80
• ALI GHULAM v. MUHAMMAD MURAD 2014 PCrLJ 84
• AIJAZ HUSSAIN JAKHRANI v. ILLAHI BUX SOOMRO 2014 PLD 90
• INAYATULLAH ANSARI v. State 2014 PLD 95
• NAMA LIKA SILK INDUSTRIES v. ULTIMATE DRIVING MACHINE 2014 PLD 100
• SHAFI MUHAMMAD BANGWAR v. State 2014 PCrLJ 105
• SAEED ALAM v. FAMILY JUDGE, ROHRI 2014 YLR 105
• ABDUL WAHAB KHOSO v. YOUSUF TUNIO 2014 MLD 111

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

advocate for immigration from Kamalia Musa lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes