Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IQBAL versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN

0 VI, R 17 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right to Advance Purchase Act 1993 (BK), Articles 4 and 6 Appeal for Amendment Right to Purchase Request / Claim Clause Amendment has already been mentioned in the letter. And consequently the relief request was also made in connection with the dispute decree that the uncleanness of the gift was in fact a process of sale that could be given on the basis of the existing prayer clause. Was explained. The proposed amendment was also framed in connection with the fact that the gift was actually a sale agreement and both parties presented their evidence on the said dispute that the modification of the applications could be made at any stage of the proceedings, provided that They will only allow the resolution of the original question in dispute. The reason for the action in the present case and the nature of the suit will not change with the approval of the amendment. There is no need to present any evidence in relation to the proposed amendment as the parties have already agreed to such version. Evidence was presented on the proposed amendment to resolve the original question in the dispute It was necessary that can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. Permission was granted accordingly

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE v. MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN 2014 YLR 1710
• SARDAR FAROOQ AHMED TAHIR v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 MLD 1742
• 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 MAQSOOD v. MUHAMMAD LATIF 2014 YLR 2139
• 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

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

pakistani advocates Mardan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes