Find a Lawyer

EHSAN ELAHI BHATTI, ADVOCATE versus WAPDA THROUGH CHAIRMAN WAPDA, LAHORE

Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XXVI, R 10 Suite, suit for the declaration of title to the local commission, under a dispute between the parties to a tube well mounted in disputes about the present facts by the courts. Was in connection with the collection of electricity bills. The fields under the plaintiff's recovery were determined by the plaintiff to be a local commissioner administered by the trial court on refusal to install tube wells but instead of relying on their reports, it was based on documentary evidence presented by the authorities initially. Trial dismissed. The application, the decision of the plaintiff and the student notice by the appellate court and the signing of the petition was made by the appellate court, it was raised by the plaintiff that the local commissioner's report is compelling evidence under O XXVI, R 10 CPC, Correct facts were ignored The Local Commissioner's report was not binding on the court as it had to adopt a free mind and consider the evidence of documented documents prepared by the GHT on-record authorities. The preparation of the evidence was available on record to the contrary by the plaintiff providing reliable or reliable documentary evidence. The arguments were not made so that the material produced by the authorities could be disputed so that the material differences were found. Both the courts had verified the evidence, finding unanimity, misrepresentation and material irregularities by the plaintiff in a solidarity finding of facts. It cannot be done that the High Court did not find any fault in the decisions passed by the lower courts, it was revised. \ r \ n \ r \ n law websites from Okara lawyer