Find a Lawyer

MST. RUKHSANA BEGUM versus MST. ULFATA

Trials of Articles 8, 42 and 54, after recording the supporting and contradictory evidence of the parties, the trial court's case for permanent injunction and possession, were dismissed, but upon filing an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. , The Court of Appeal, below, had alleged that litigation claimants had timely stopped the case filed by the plaintiff. That the defendants had spent millions of rupees on construction of the suit land and that the defendants were numerous purchasers of the suit land, the defendants could not prove that the case was time-barred while the evidence on record shows that It appears that the case filed by the plaintiff was good inside the defendant. In the evidence of his claim he could not provide any proof that he had spent a large sum of money on the improvement / construction of the suit property and that he was a substantial buyer of the suit property which he had purchased from his seller and his The appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence available on record. Misrepresentation of evidence, illegal interference of any kind, any material irregularities or wrongdoing of jurisdiction or unlawful interference in the unanimous decision of the appellate court, omission of revision against unknown decision power of attorney advocate Sidhnoti lawyer