Find a Lawyer

BINYAMEEN versus HAKIM

Respondent was requested by the respondent to effect the oral agreement in section 12 (2) and O VI, R 4 applications and the difference in evidence, subsequently requested to place on the record document which does not speak of the oral agreement. But under the written agreement, the trial court rejected the defendant and the petition was put on record and the trial proceeded in the trial court. Filed, despite the fact that the review was filed 5 years later, such documents were allowed and The proven constitutional application was rejected by the High Court accuracy document, nowhere has it been stated that there was an oral agreement between the parties before or on the same date, therefore, in the oral agreement petition for written agreement. There was no such charge. Legal in law and further that such a document cannot prove the request for an oral agreement under section 12 (2), the CPC party can stand trial if it can assist in its application. No evidence can be presented or supported in the application which was not modified in the application and the evidence was not valid in law. This document could not prove that it did not speak of the oral agreement but the proof of the written agreement should not be different from the litigation. The trial court was competent to decide on the acceptance of the document in which The amending court did not act lawfully and had committed material misconduct list of advocates from Khair Pur Mir lawyer