Find a Lawyer

MST. ZUBAIDA BEGUM versus MUHAMMAD ZAKRIA

Section 33 Su for the Prohibition Order Prohibition The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was crossing the suite shop in lieu of repairing the roof of the suit shop and wanted to put a girder and lintel on the walls of the shop. On behalf of the plaintiff; that the shop had its own walls, which in any way conflicted with the defendants and that the plaintiff was entitled to use the suit shop roof while the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's case. Appellate Court Partial Appeal allowed Validity Suit Shop was not an independent shop, which PTD issued by settlement authorities showed it was not an independent shop, but rather a "shop (part of the building)." "It was said. Such a claimant had no right to use the roof as part of the building, as the salesman of his claimant's suit shop stated that there was a "hollow" in the east corner and that it was used as part of the shop. Was shown in the plan on The municipal committee records show that this window exists in the plaintiff's appellate court store when it was discovered that the plaintiff's shop window was his and he was entitled to use it as his shop front. Do not suffer any kind of weakness or illegality and this is maintained by the High Court best law firm from Ukba lawyer