Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Convene Evidence Order 1984 Article 633th Act (X of 1873); Articles 8 to 11 of the prosecution decision challenging the suit by the plaintiff / applicant to recover the amount filed by the plaintiff / applicant by the trial court. Was dismissed, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the trial court's decision, stating that if the appeal was decided on the defendant's statement, after the defendant accepted the plaintiff's suggestion, the appellate court appealed. The appeal was dismissed in light of the statement made on the oath by the court, because in the review filed by the plaintiff, the High Court rejected the appeal. The decision challenged that Article 163E testimony under the Act, 1984, after repealing the provisions of Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act 1873, in view of this decision on the special statement of the defendant's special oath by the Court of Appeal. It could not be ruled out that both provisions were in the works. In various fields and no one affected the field of operation of the other, from its own accord to its decision to appeal, the result was undoubtedly by the plaintiff and the rule of estoppel was clearly applied to it. Was [estoppel] online advocate from Takhtbai lawyer