Find a Lawyer

ISLAM-UD-DIN versus AHMAD KHAN

A. VII, Rr. 14 and 18 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Section 135 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 of the plaintiff's and the defendants (real division of the common suit between brothers forty years ago). The plaintiff's decision for the relevant declaration (of the plaintiff) and then the parties was seized separately but the trial court ruled that the suit was dismissed, but the question dismissed in the appeal was whether the appellate court had applied for the enforcement of the partition. Correctly denied the copy, which was signed by the parties, on the basis that it was not legally mentioned in the nature of the witnesses This was because the evidence of the witnesses was filed about thirty-three years after the partition of Property Party O. The joint stand on the record proved that it caused one defendant to enter the extent of his interest and another to testify. Failure to enter due to non-partition of the box, the appellate court committed a serious error, ignoring oral and documentary evidence. The appellate order was not legally sustainable under the circumstances and was settled while the trial court was reinstated. online advocate from Shorkot lawyer