LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants' request under Rule 1 and 5 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), framing / casting O XIV on the case of occupation and permanent injunction suit, rule 5, let CPC Defendants said that the parties' requests had led to the issues, and that they should have sought litigation, under which the initial objections were either written in the statement. I did not raise the defendants in their written statement, the defendants suggested by the non-partner of the parties involved. Or, defying the plaintiff's claims about eligibility, and saying that the issue did not arise from the parties' request, the second issue was not in view of the defendant's specific position in the written statements about eligibility, and so on. They also presented evidence. , There can be no opinion that the defendants were aware and aware of their position in the written statement, and there was no need to settle the matter as the decision was taken on the basis of the evidence that the defendants had led. can go.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
