Find a Lawyer

HIDAYATULLAH KHAN versus AJMAL KHAN

The parties were charged with the provisions of Article 42 and Q54 Law of the Martyrdom (of 1984 of Ten), Arts 117 and 118 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 suit which burdened with declaration and permanent injunction. He was charged. Plaintiff's trial deficiencies could not be benefited by the trial court's assertion that the trial court correctly proceeded to claim that the defendant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff's case being doubtful. And all of the plaintiff's evidence was self-contradictory and a very unwanted appeals court. There were compelling reasons for agreeing to the trial court's finding, and the defendants' claim that they were the owners of the suit land due to inheritance and that the registration in the Revenue Record was illegal, illegal and invalid and the defendants and the taxpayers As a result of the collusion between the officials, without any positive effort to help themselves, it did not result, the High Court had no limitation using the powers under Section 115, CPC. The jurisdiction to reject the results of the first appellate court, unless the wrong reading and the reading of the evidence or the superiority The result of a breach of a rule by the courts altun be defined as appropriate evidence and records are not available. No provision was found in the court's finding of coercive jurisdiction for not reading any writings / evidence or any material irregularities or wrongful conduct of any jurisdiction or any interference with any jurisdiction and no law. No errors were identified and no justification for interfering with their thorough search was available. solicitors from Phoolnagar (Bhai Pheru) lawyer