Find a Lawyer

MUNSHI KHAN versus KARAMAT KHAN

OVI, R 17 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 The defendant's jurisdiction to amend the trial did not mention the facts that were brought on record by the modification of the case. Could not say that the facts were in the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing the case or it was said that the facts were present at that time, the circumstances were revoked.

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• QURBAN v. SHAHEEN AKHTAR 2014 YLR 2195
• Barrister Syed IFTIKHAR ALI GILLANI v. FRIENDS TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION 2014 YLR 2383
• PUBLIC AT LARGE INHABITANTS OF DHOKE PHALA v. MAZHAR HUSSAIN 2014 YLR 2491
• ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KOTLI v. Ch. RAHEEM DAD KHAN 2014 YLR 2515
• AAMIR TAJ SATTI v. The STATE through Additional Advocate General 2014 YLR 2663
• MUHAMMAD AZAM v. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AJ&K MUZAFFARABAD 2014 CLC 19
• ZAHEER AHMED SHEIKH v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 56
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN MUZAFFARABAD v. MUHAMMAD HANIF BUKHARI 2014 PCrLJ 58

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

divorce advocates from Tando Jam lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes