Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN RAJA versus KHAN MIR KHAN

Section 60 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), Section 148 Expansion of the mortgage process for recovery of mortgages The court-scope suit was ruled in favor of the plaintiff within three months, to submit a complimentary sum, The plaintiff, however, did not file an appeal. The defendants appealed that the plaintiff failed to submit the trial within the stipulated time by the trial court and his request for permission to submit the same amount was rejected and the plaintiff dismissed. The sentencing was finalized when the appeal for extension of the case was disposed of, then the application was moved three months later when the amount collected could not be of any benefit to the plaintiff. Was hit by the side's objections. Discretion was properly used by the trial court and there was no unlawful action or irregularity In a non-judgmental order was found to be fraudulent or corrupt.

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• ABDUL JABBAR v. State 2014 PCrLJ 99
• NAEEM AHMED ABBASI v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad 2014 PLC(CS) 237
• MUHAMMAD SABIR v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE Of JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 MLD 242
• AZHAR HUSSAIN GILLANI v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 CLC 314
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR CHAUDHARY v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 361
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL MUGHAL v. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE MUGHAL 2014 YLR 370
• SPINTEX LIMITED through Manager Personal Administration v. EMPLOYEES\' OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION (E.O.B.I.) 2014 PLC 409
• Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ARVI v. MUSHTAQ AHMED 2014 CLC 410

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

online advocate from Hyderabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes