Find a Lawyer

LALZADA versus MIAN TAUHEEDULLAH

The possession of the property under a factual claim by the courts below the jurisdiction of the High Court's revised rules for recovery of section 115 & civil civil code of conduct (v. 1908), section 115 suit. The following two courts were ordered simultaneously by the respondent to recover the. In favor of this, while the petitioner's dismissal of a permanent injunction claim was dismissed, the petitioner submitted that it was not appropriate to value the evidence by both the courts as the High Court in its revised jurisdiction May interfere with the search for truth where jurisdictional error was apparent. Or evidence based on the fact that the court was unlawful and irregular in its proceedings, the court cannot interfere with the finding of fact based on the fact that the definition of evidence was not appropriate on the basis that the facts listed by the two courts in the present case. The findings were neither arbitrary. Both courts applied them, keeping in mind the facts and legal aspects of the case; citing valid reasons for supporting their decisions and properly appreciating the evidence on record. The applicant cannot be identified as misinterpreting any material and reading the evidence, nor can any conclusions be drawn by the courts because he was dismissed simply because there was an opposing view. It is also possible that the High Court refused to interfere with the concurrent decisions and the orders passed below the review by the two courts, were dismissed. immigration advocate from Shorkot lawyer