SYED MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE SHAH versus MIAN JAVED IQBAL
Sections 42 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O xxxxx, Rr 1 and 2 Interim Order, Depending on the fact of the dispute, the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property with the claimant after payment of the claim and The plaintiff, owner of TH1 / 3rd, further asserts that his name has been removed from the sale proceedings illegally. Defendants' view was that the plaintiff did not pay his full share and thus was not entitled to a 1/3 share in the suit property and his name was deleted with his consent requesting the interim injunction in the trial court. Was excluded by The plaintiff's primary plea was that he obtained title to the suit property through legal proceedings from which his name was illegally removed, requiring deep consideration after recording the evidence on such a case. Is. The plaintiff's name was removed with his consent when it was actually required to be established even after the refund was paid by him. The plaintiff in both cases was sold by the act of sale. Of the total land purchased, 9 were purchased. The High Court has granted interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, which was mentioned in the acts sold by the said land. His name was later deleted and the application was allowed accordingly
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
