Find a Lawyer

NASIR AHMED versus MUHAMMAD ABID

A. XXXIX, Rr 1, 2 and Section 115 Interim Order Prohibition, the applicant / plaintiff's grant was the co-owner of the land from which the defendant / defendant purchased the land for construction of 10 Marl, the entire land was a separate petitioner / The plaintiff's suit was owned by the trial court in which the trial court refused to promise the respondents / defendants that they would risk construction on their own risk and the trial court's order was upheld by a powerful appellate court Nothing was available to suggest. On the occasion, the respondents / defendants cannot be allowed to change the nature of the suit property only on the basis of such promise, as this will give the applicant / plaintiff a premium and further complications for the parties. Is equivalent to creating. Revenue records show that all the co-operatives, jointly still occupying the entire land, so the question of the delivery of a specific part of the suit cannot be answered by the respondents / defendants who set aside the orders of the two courts below. And the defendants / defendants were barred from changing the property / nature of the suit land under which the interim injunction was approved how to become a advocate from Thari Mirwah lawyer