The trial court for provisions, 54.55 & and (56 (a)) for a permanent and mandatory injunction was dismissed on the ground that the permanent order was not binding on the division of property, and the trial court's order by appeal. The petitioner claimed that the respondents had affirmed the statement that they would sell the property in their share, and would not sell more than their share because such a trial court would Because there was no need to record. No other evidence is valid where a specific procurement was available, specific rail Under section 56 (a) of the F Act 1877, the case was not maintainable, but in the present case, the applicant was claiming that he owned the property in accordance with his share of the share, and even though the applicant's The part was invalid, but he has the right to request that the petitioner's complaint be for the sole reason that the defendant should not be excluded. The property he had, the applicant was entitled to the relief mentioned above. It was conceded that the petitioners and the respondents were joint owners of the suit property and the court appeared on such aspect of the case during the trial. The non-trial hearing was dismissed, which meant that the court allowed the defendant to forcibly expel the applicant without law enforcement. The High Court had modified the decisions of the courts to such an extent that the applicant should not be forcibly expelled, but allowed to revise the law accordingly,
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
