Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HASSAN versus DHARAMDAS

The original CPC Code of Appeals appeals to the original decree of the XLI, R 22 and Section 115 trial court's failure to file cross-objections in the appeal was against both parties and neither party proved its title. Could not find that the plaintiff had filed an appeal and the lower appellate court had ruled that the plaintiff's defense had not filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court for claiming ownership of the property in this case. Nor was there any cross-objection and the case was so ordered that the defendant neither filed any appeal nor cross in the first appeal. By filing objections and challenging his right to relinquish his right, the plaintiff could not establish his right to ownership in the review process. And the documentary evidence that the plaintiff was in possession of this suit property was a perpetrator / violator ND was not entitled to sue for the avoidance / eviction of the settlement whose trial was initiated by the plaintiff. was done attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Bannu lawyer