Find a Lawyer

MATI ULLAH KHAN versus YASEEN

Article 44 Permanent injunction Defendant claimed that the suit land, which is owned by the provincial government, was in possession of it and said that the property was proposed to be allotted for it but the defendant tried to take possession of the said land. The permanent injunction was to prevent defendants from interfering with its occupation. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim, claiming that the land in the dispute was declared to be Katchi population and was in their possession, similarly allotted and they filed the required trial charges. Were. Revenue records recorded by the plaintiff in the trial court's dismissal were recorded as unauthorized occupants of the suit land, which was clearly stated by the plaintiff. That the suit land was previously owned by the plaintiff, but it was currently in the possession of the plaintiff. Insisted that in fact his witness denied the suggestion after his suggestion, the witness's investigation, the refusal was not excluded from the record and it was proved that the witness had stated the words in clear terms, the suit only The permanent order is for immunity, so it was liable to be rejected because the plaintiff was not on the suit suit. best advocate from Moro lawyer