MUHAMMAD AHMAD MUMTAZ versus MUHAMMAD LATIF
In the case of dispute in the unit comprising both commercial and residential sections, the case for section 42 and permanent 54 permanent injunction was moved by the Settlement Authorities in the name of the applicant and PTD was issued in favor of it. And may claim to own / transfer. Of the above, the respondents failed to produce any document in their favor which shows that in the dispute the Barasati was transferred to them, the petitioner filed a claim for the declaration that He is the owner of the aforementioned rainforest and claimed poor profits and prayed for it to be barred from separating the respondents from the injunction against the trial court and the appellant. The Court has, on the other hand, dismissed the case through concurrent decisions of the applicant and the judicial decisions which brought the evidence on record. The result of misreading and material irregularities. The High Court put it aside using its amending jurisdiction
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
immigration advocate from FR Bannu / Lakki lawyer
