Find a Lawyer

MST. KHUIZSHID BIBI versus NAZIR AHMAD

Section 42 and permanent 53 Case for Declaration and Permanent Order The defendant filed a lawsuit on the basis that the defendants had collectively affirmed the name of one of the defendants in the defendants and excluded the plaintiff from the trial property, The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's case. But the same was proved by the appellate court. The defendant's interest was (now late) the plaintiff's original brother, and he had earlier filed a lawsuit with the plaintiff and two other defendants for possession of four canals of land. In the present case, the defendants, in addition to the defendants, had made a confessional statement against the defendants on the basis of which, in the interest of the defendants, the plaintiff and two other defendants, the consent of the aforesaid plaintiff was approved. Said he had accepted the case. Subsequently, the suit no longer owned any property and was not capable of transferring or separating it from anyone in any way, allegedly executed by the defendant, The one who made the confessional statement was not legal. And the facts were not based on the plaintiff's as well as the three other defendants who owned the suit property on the basis of the decree passed in their favor. The High Court partially approved the request for review and the appellate court's unclean judgment and decree were amended to such an extent. The three other defendants affiliated with the plaintiff were jointly the owner of the suit property and the change thereafter was not a lawful settlement. law firms from Mardan lawyer