Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AKBAR versus ALIF KHAN

Sections 8, 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AX, R5, OXLI, R31, and Section 115 suit, which claim possession, declaration and permanent injunction prohibit the owner of the property Was. According to the land due to the oral sale; and the entries in the Revenue Record contained in the name of the predecessor in the interest of the defendants were illegal, void and ineffective in favor of the plaintiff; the plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction And in the alternative he prayed for the possession of the suit land. If he did not get possession of the same suit, he was dismissed by the courts below the accuracy oons to prove the fact of the oral sale, the plaintiff was dismissed with the majority of the benefit, but he was presented. Failure to exclude it as evidence. The plaintiff was unable to show that the entries in the Revenue Record were illegal and invalid and that his right to be based on the correct definition of the evidence admitted by the courts was not valid. The High Court's amended jurisdiction, especially when the plaintiff cannot identify any misreading or non-reading, has been brought under the appellate courts to all disputes of evidence by the court and it appears that the cause of any prejudiced plaintiff And the appellate court resolved the matter involved and decided cautiously. The appellate court was not required by law because under the OLLI, R-31, the CPC appellate court would specify points for determination, give its verdict on it, and also mention the plaintiff's objection to the reasons for the said decision. Go patent advocate from Gohar Ghoushti lawyer