Find a Lawyer

GHULAM SIDDIQUE versus MST. AJAIB

Special Relief Act 1877 Section 8 Law Inquiries (10 of 1984), Article 72 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Recovery of Occupation of Suite Property Determination of Fact Inquiry by Courts Under Fake Receipt Owner To prove that the suit property had sold to the defendants for a sum of Rs 20,000, out of which Rs 16,000 was first received and the remaining Rs 4,000 was to be recovered ten years later, the plaintiff asserted that The defendants failed to pay the remaining amount, 000,000 thousand rupees, so possession of the property would be conveyed to them. The defendants prepared a receipt according to which the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the disputed receipt was fake and that the original receipt was neither recorded on the record nor the plaintiff denied the signatures during which he cross-examined during the trial court. And the appellate court dismissed the case, and the defendant's refusal to prove that the disputed receipt was fraudulent and fabricated, as the property's Owens W plaintiff did, was not sufficient to simply deny that the defendants The evidence presented can be sought by the courts below the authorized jurisdiction. On the one hand, in the absence of any jurisdictional error or defect or misrepresentation or lack of evidence, or the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court has ruled in judicial proceedings. Refused to intervene, which was approved by the courts under review. Dismiss in the circumstances best law firm from Kot Addu lawyer