Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD BASHIR versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

The Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 for the plaintiff claimed that he was the owner in the village and also a co-partner in the Shmilt Deh and did not make any encroachments; the demolition of the building by him was illegal as was important in the case. There was a problem. As to whether the claimant was entitled to claim for trial, the matter continued in the judgment deciding that under the action of section 133, the CCP found that the Plaintiff infringed on the ground. Were told by a public place. The appellate court relying on the order issued by the Alla Magistrate in the proceedings under section 133, CR PC, in the context of the dispute and controversy, in ruling the trial court's decision on the issue, before which it was earlier. Did not discuss or consider copies of the revenue records submitted. , It was not enough to restate the fate of the civil suit and hence the termination of the approach to the trial was somewhat contradictory and inconsistent as it was found that the defendant was in the village Was the owner and claimed on the controversial site that there was a co-owner in Schmidtada who had not yet been split by the courts of unlawful and material illegal courts. There were irregularities, instability in the law. The High Court decided the concurrent decisions of the courts below in the direction that the case filed by the plaintiff should be decided in accordance with the law. top civil advocates from Kahror Pacca lawyer