Find a Lawyer

GEORGE MASIH versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Article 199 of the Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Sections 9 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 of the Constitution Petition for recovery of possession, according to the law, the respondent for a permanent injunction against it The lawsuit was filed. As the petitioner and his two brothers, the Pharma Defendants' trial court ruled on the petitioners' case and dismissed the defendants' case. The High Court, affirming the appeal and the judgment against the judgment passed by the Appellate / Revision Court, found that the real brothers of the respondents' co-owners with the said respondents, together with the petitioners, denied the contents of the said claim and A statement is requested. The Responding Local Commissioner had inspected that the order of the property was taken a few days after receiving the immunity e. On the eve of the occasion when under the local lawsuit the Commissioner of the suit had confirmed the claims regarding the facts of the property, No objection was filed against the report, in which case the local Commissioner Appellate Court misread the evidence and sent it to jail for reading. The evidence on the record was misinterpreted or read by the trial court. Was pointed out but the appellate court did not give any reason for rejecting the trial court's decision. The respondents seized the use of force, they did not deserve arbitrary relief. The injunction was exercised by the appellate court without any legal authority while the constitutional petition and revision allowed by the trial court, rejecting the decree and order, were approved by the appellate court. how to become a advocate from Kakur Town lawyer