Find a Lawyer

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, GUJRANWALA versus ALAMGIR

Additional evidence under the Civil 54 Code of Civil Code (v. 1908), Section 115, AXLI, R27, under the amended jurisdiction of the court, following the discovery of the facts by the accused, the plaintiffs claim that the owner of the plot Is the owner. Preventing Interference in Their Occupation Authorities claim that the suit plot was acquired for a public housing scheme and that the defendants had already received their compensation, which the trial court relied on in a local commission report. Depending on whether the plaintiff filed in favor of the authorities, the (petitioner) filed an application for additional evidence, which was rejected by the trial court and the appellate court. Authorities said the documents needed to be presented were necessary for a fair decision in the case and the local commission's report was not in line with revenue. If we read the documents with the request of the parties, the decision is not necessary without a valid decision on the documents, which were material and necessary, under which the authorities had taken a specific stand on the record of the records before the courts. Had submitted its report without recording. And without informing the collector, who was involved in the proceedings since the courts below did not consider this aspect of the case, therefore, the decisions of both the courts were based on the evidence and speculation that the court should keep all its conclusions on the evidence. Should. And not just compromises and speculations, the Supreme Court allowed the application for additional evidence filed by the authorities and the decision and decision issued by the appellate court were set aside and the appeal after considering the case. immigration advocates from Daur lawyer