A. XXVI, R 9 The appointment of a local commission dispute between the parties was in relation to the wall that was dividing the parties' respective shops. The respondent claimed that the wall was exclusively owned by him and was completely owned by him. Was located in which the applicant also, with the consent of the parties, appointed the wall by the local commission claiming the property, submitted its report after the spot inspection which was prepared on the basis of site inspection in the presence of these parties. Those who did not object to the report of the local commission courts on this basis. The local commission reported that after the defendant's accepted claim on the wall in the dispute, it was claimed that the local commission's report was not clear and proceeded to record evidence to give the court a separate ruling on each case. Should have increased. The dispute of accuracy was canceled, as the parties themselves agreed to the appointment of the local commission and it was agreed that they would be bound by the report submitted by the local commission, even after the report was submitted, The parties have not raised any objection to this; it is not necessary for the trial to record the trial or to produce conclusions on the matters produced by it. Based on the local commission report presented by the courts below, the exemption was not open
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
