Under Article 114 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), section 42 suit for declaration estoppel, the principle of deposit of dues under the protest effect was the compensation of the plot located in the Board and its complaint was made by the development charges and With respect to the premium which was increased. The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the rates and the appeal filed by the plaintiff, respectively, was the plaintiff's contention that he had submitted the alleged allegations under the protest, the amount collected under the protest Should not be taken as a resignation by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the situation was very much alive and on that date the plaintiff wrote a letter to the Cantonment Board alleging the facts of the protest in connection with the payment, under which both courts failed to examine the evidence available on file. Because they were charged with excess and excessive charges. Controversial property by the Cantonment Board with no legal authority was leased to the plaintiff as an old grant, later changed but under the parameters given by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction, the following two The decisions and orders passed by the courts were set aside and the case filed by the plaintiff was allowed to pass judgment in their favor.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
