Section 79 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Articles 42 and 54 in their official capacity sued by or against the Government or Government Officers, in case of non-governmental claim as a party and permanent. The order suits for the defendant that the plaintiffs' ancestors were co-defendants in Suitland. That they were part of the provincial government on some part of the suit and tried to prevent the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit, the suit was ruled out by the trial court. The point is that it was not qualified under section 79 suit. Because the provincial government had the power to sue property, which was not claimed by the defendant, the legal proceedings at the trial revealed that the plaintiffs and the defendants had sued property with the trial court. Had raised such an object in front. A case was termed as a finding of the trial court which stated that the case was illegal and revolving because in a case when the matter is illegal property and it was seized or claimed by the government, In such cases, the Member Board of Revenue was a necessary party through its secretary, in the event of non-enforcement of the government in the suit, the suit disqualified and the non-bailable High Court rejected the trial court's order filed by the defendants. The case was dismissed, with the observation that the plaintiffs in every way had a fresh case under the exemption. The freedom to register, according to which it was allowed to revise, ly r \ n
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
