O XXXIX Rr 1 and 2 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877) Section 42 Temporarily prohibiting order, grant of suit for declaration in relation to the right of ownership was the plaintiff's argument that he was in possession of the suit as a tenant. And a statement was sought about it. It has the right to hold the property, under AOXXX Rules 1 and 2, allowing the plaintiff's application under CPC to prevent the plaintiff from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff, Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Rule 2 (3) of the XXXXX, citing that the trial court had dismissed the defendant, despite the trial court's injunction, And the collector was instructed to give possession to the plaintiff. The defendant's claim was that the plaintiff was never in the case. The property and, therefore, the impugned order was invalid. The plaintiff in the suit dismissed the suit property during the lawlessness of the suit and said that the record was held by the lower courts in view of the fact that it was clearly suggested that the plaintiff. The seizure of the property was harassed by the measures and does not mean guaranteed by law. And the plaintiff did not need any further evidence to prove the facts relating to the possession and disposition of the plaintiff, therefore, at the time of setting up the case and then disposing of it, it was proved that his case was related, therefore, the courts below The search was based on evidence and cannot be done. Disturbed review deleted
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
