Find a Lawyer

SABIR JANA versus HAMIDULLAH JAN

Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OI, R 10 Suit to declare that the variation in question is invalid, illegal, bead, fraud and ineffective on the rights of the defendant and the defendant Pharma. Was. Applicants were then set aside in the appeal, it was submitted that they had purchased some of the land in question, the applicants mentioned in their petition that the sale was in their favor. A copy of the agreement was attached, but in fact excluding its request, no such copy was attached as the applicant's review request for the decision was also dropped. Valdetti was the wife of one of the defendants competing with the petitioner and was closely related to the other defendant, in which case the trial court found. The sale was not legalized but was yet to be executed in favor of the fraudulent and fraudulent case that was filed with the Revenue Officers as well as the defendant's applicants. In addition, the applicant had been silent for four years for the appellate court's claim, therefore, the applicant's request was properly excluded and the request for review would be processed. Was not able to maintain the status quo based on the power filed after it advocates from Sihala lawyer