Qanuni Amdad urdu

The fault with the rent receipt (Exhibit-P2) was that it was introduced into evidence through the statement of counsel without the counsel being sworn in as a witness. This procedural lapse made the receipt inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which requires documentary evidence to be supported by a witness who can testify to its authenticity under oath. A unique point decided in the judgment is the careful scrutiny of the admissibility of evidence, particularly the rent receipt (Exhibit-P2). The court emphasized that the rent receipt was crucial for the case but ruled it inadmissible because it wasn't proven according to the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. This highlights the importance of following procedural rules in presenting evidence, which can greatly influence legal outcomes. HCJDA 38. Judgment Sheet LAHORE HIGH COURT RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT …. F.A.O. NO.49 of 2017 GHULAM DASTGIR SIDDIQUI and others  Versus Mst. ELIZBETH and another  JU

Here's a brief summary of the legal proceedings described: The Supreme Court of Pakistan dealt with Civil Petition No. 740 of 2013, where it dismissed the petition on May 21, 2014, while establishing the title of the respondents, Ameer Mumtaz, etc. Despite dismissing the petition, the court considered taking action against the petitioners under relevant legal provisions due to possible obstruction and abuse of the court process. After issuing a show cause notice to the petitioners, their counsel argued their lack of criminal intent due to their limited education. The court, however, decided not to make a final determination on this issue and referred the matter to the Sessions Judge in Swat for further legal proceedings. The court emphasized the seriousness of perjury and fabrication of evidence, ensuring justice and deterring baseless litigation. Additionally, a review petition (CRP No. 295 of 2014) seeking to overturn the court's decision was dismissed as it did not present v