Find a Lawyer

AMEER AFZAL versus AMJAD NAHEEM QURESHI

A XVII, R 3 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), the closing of section 12 suit evidence for the specific performance of the contract. A partial statement was recorded and the next date the trial court set the hearing for the defendant's statement, the trial court began recording the defendant's statement as a witness but did not complete his statement on the said date and defendant Approved the unclean order to close the rest of the evidence. On that day, the trial court was not only appropriate and the appropriate anti-graft case was pending before the trial court and both cases had to be dealt with by a single verdict. And the trial court was instructed to provide the defendants with the opportunity to produce the remaining evidence that would have been completed on F date. For this review, ixed was accepted under the circumstances.

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• Kh. MUSHTAQ AHMED DAR v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 1299
• Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary 2014 CLC 1304
• SHAHROOM v. State 2014 PCrLJ 1327
• BADAR ZAMMAN v. DISTRICT JUDGE 2014 MLD 1340
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad 2014 YLR 1343
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAHEEN v. RENT CONTROLLER/SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MIRPUR 2014 MLD 1422
• WAPDA through Chief Engineer, Mangla Dam Raising Project Mirpur v. INHABITANT OF BOHA through Fazal Ellahi 2014 MLD 1457
• KHADIM HUSSAIN v. MUHAMMAD YASEEN 2014 CLC 1474

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

property advocate from Rahwali lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes