Find a Lawyer

SAMEENA ARIF versus MUHAMMAD ARIF BARRY

The Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AX Exxon, RR 1 and 2 defendant plaintiffs are demanding a declaration of the impression that the defendant ( Her ex-husband) owns the house. In the alternative question as to the plaintiff for the plaintiff in question that he is the co-owner of the house up to 1/2 share, the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction was dismissed by the High Court (Single Judge). Rejected in front. The High Court was also dismissed. The High Court (Single Judge) had temporarily said that there was no evidence to support that the money withdrawn from the bank by the plaintiff was used to construct the house. Referring to documents produced by the plaintiff, the amount was withdrawn by the plaintiff in 1988, while the house was constructed between 1983 and 1985 when the defendant's father claimed it in his affidavit. After considering the relevant position of the parties, the decision to buy the house in question was made on the basis of being a neighboring High Court (Single Judge) that the plaintiff had failed to deal with the preliminary aspect and such provisional assessment. Was retained incorrectly by the Division Bench plaintiff. That the lower courts did not take into account the bank accounts offered by the plaintiff who used arbitrary proceedings against the plaintiff, there was no issue of interference, in the circumstances denying leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. had gone. advocates from Mithi lawyer