Find a Lawyer

QURBAN versus SHAHEEN AKHTAR

Section 42 of the Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), O XX, R 5 The plaintiff's recording of the finding on each case by the court was that the defendant had gifted more than his share of the land and that the suit was simultaneous. The division of accuracy was excluded from proceedings before the Revenue Officer for all the decisions that were made in the current case for misconduct. The defendants did not present credible evidence in support of their version and there was no evidence to prove Evidence was not presented that the defendant had alienated the land beyond his part, recording the results on each separate matter if It was not enough that the decision was sufficient to find any or more of the issues that the appellate court had given in detail in the judgment on the main issue, so as to record the findings on separate matters in the present case. No need was left out. Dismiss in the circumstances

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• WASIM AFZAL v. EHTESAB BUREAU AZAD KASHMIR 2014 MLD 1788
• QURAT-UL-AIN LATIF v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 YLR 1869
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. MUHAMMAD IRFAN 2014 YLR 1972
• MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD v. MUHAMMAD LATIF 2014 YLR 2139
• 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
• MUNSHI KHAN v. KARAMAT KHAN 2014 YLR 2641

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

when you need a advocate from Sita Road lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes