Find a Lawyer

AHMAD BAKHSH versus MUHAMMAD NASIR KHAN

The Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 Sections 77 and 114 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the Claimant claim that they are occupying the land which is owned by the owner and that That the defendants had relinquished their possession rights and that the trial court responsible for correcting the contrary entries in the Revenue Record had ruled, however, that it was found that the civil court had no jurisdiction, The High Court concluded that the case was identifiable by him. The Civil Court and the Trial Court ruled that the legitimate view taken by the High Court proceeded on the correct premises; legally, even the factual court refused to interfere with the High Court's findings that the first Court of Civil Court appealed. Has also termed the matter as credible. However, the court did not decide the question of possession rights by the defendants, therefore, it was allowed to examine whether the High Court found that the civil court had jurisdiction, the trial court's order. Or the appellate court should have sought a remand of the case so that they could find a question for the defendants to waive their rights of occupancy. list of supreme court advocates from Utror lawyer