Find a Lawyer

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, ACTG. C.J. AND CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN

Section 44 ??? Civil Procedure Code, (v. 1908), O VII, R 3 The plaintiff for a permanent injunction had claimed that the disputed portion of the total land had been in its possession for a long time and that it had sued the land over the land. Had built a tank and boundary. And the same plaintiff also dug a well and claimed that he planted about 200 trees on the suit land. The plaintiff interfered in the possession of the plaintiff, he sought a permanent injunction with the plaintiff along with the plaintiff and also filed a copy of the nephew's complaint. The year 1997 in which their occupation was recorded on a disputed portion of the total land on the basis of the variable, Syed Khusra Gudwari indicates that the total land was recorded in the record ir although the plaintiff was in possession of non-possible possession, although the above change. Was recorded on the basis of, but even in this ambiguous entry it was not mentioned which aspect of the total land, the disputed part of the land was not owned by the defendant nd if the defendant's claim Recognizing that, even though it could not be ordered a permanent injunction, the parties said they could gain the right to ease the land, But they did not have the right to divide it among themselves and claim a permanent injunction against each one. The other plaintiffs in the plaintiffs' courts did not claim that the government had given them proper land or granted them and that the defendants intend to evict them even if the plaintiff filed their case permanently. Order cannot be approved forbidden. The plaintiff was subjected to a misunderstanding and no relevant evidence was available for a permanent injunction patent advocate from Bolan lawyer