Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD EHSAN versus NOOR MUHAMMAD

Section 115 and AXXI, R 10 were ordered to sue for modification to occupy the premises. The interference / protestor's request for execution was dismissed and the hanging authorities authorized to hang. The occupation of the house in conjunction with was handed over to the applicant / intermediary so as to defeat the order with the intention of defeating the judgment and not the decree passed in favor of the respondents (interlocutor / objector). The legal and customary documentation of the house under discussion was from the applicant / interlocutor with the Development Authority Has been obtained from the hdydarun Bhagat. The orders of the trial court and the appellate court were for the right reasons to exclude the interlocutor's request and could not be altered / amended or put aside in review as it was neither the same nor the same. Easy deletion or misrepresentation of non-evidence, including any fabrication / manipulation of documents issued in conjunction with development authority officials, does not create any right in favor of such document holder. And has no right to retain possession of the house. In any question which was given by the decision maker by fraudulent intervention / objector review request as well as all listed applications were dismissed, the High Court Executive Court was directed that He should issue an attachment writ without notice and provide police assistance. Decision debtor and objector / interceptor illegal occupation of the premises more than 35 years ago jobs for fresh advocates from Shahdad Pur lawyer