MUHAMMAD SHER versus GUL MUHAMMAD
Partition was opposed to the partition division and the partition suit, which claimed that the parties owned two shops, but the plaintiff dismissed the charge to sue in the case of only one shop. Was proved, on the evidence it was proved that the other shop was purchased by the claimant. In relation to open auctions and proprietary rights it was stated that the shop had been moved in its favor the plaintiff had failed to produce a document in which to show that the second shop was jointly owned by the parties. At present, there was no partial division case, the exclusion was not justified and the appellate court correctly set aside the trial court's decision and order and it was not allowed by the appellate court in any way. Failed to interfere with or to misrepresent evidence, its judgment and injunction cannot be interfered with. High Court using the jurisdiction to amend
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
power of attorney advocate Khangarh lawyer
