Find a Lawyer

HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ versus HAKEEM SAEED AHMAD

O XXXIX, Rr 1, 2 and O XXVI, Rr 9, 10, 16 and Section 75 (b) Convention on Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 117 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 42, 52, 53 and 55 Appointment Suit Permanent and compulsory injunction for local commission to appoint land boundary in dispute was decided on the local commission report and the order was confirmed in the local commission's appeal report. Which indicated that some error in measuring measles was suggested that if such an error had been corrected, the defendant's encroachments would have been established, clearly indicating that the local commission did Matter Since the latter had traveled, the Local Commission did not have to propose amendment of the revenue record as it was not disputed among the parties. The parties had set up their own affairs. The requests based on the existing record and, therefore, the expenditures, if any, had to be determined on the basis of the existing record, as the plaintiff had to prove that the defendant had made. Over his property but he failed to prove his case, the concurrent ruling was based on unconditional observation of the local commission, it was not sustainable, therefore, the High Court dismissed it. \ r \ n \ r \ n female advocates from Rawalpindi lawyer