The application for the custody of the petitioner against the dismissal of the application for the custody of the vehicle in dispute of section 561A & 516A Penal Code (XLV of 1860), section 406/420/506B, was dismissed on this basis. It was reported that both sides were claiming to be the real owners of the car in question as it was difficult for the trial court to determine who was the original owner, as the trial court found that there was a difference between the two sides of the vehicle. In the case of rights / ownership dispute, the parties should approach the civil court to decide the ownership of the vehicle in question based on the evidence presented by the parties. The appellate court upheld the trial court's validity, claiming that both sides were claiming to be the owners of the vehicle in question; in question, proof of ownership could be established before the appropriate forum could be provided under the law. ? Orders passed by two courts that are not subject to any kind of illegal interference or materiel. Due to high irregularities, interference cannot be made
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
