Find a Lawyer

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH DISTRICT CONTROLLER, OKARA versus MST. KHURSHED BEGUM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS

Section 8 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), Section 115 suit possession r \ n The limiting trial court, for good reason, dismissed the claim that the appellate court of limitation did not investigate the question regarding the limitation, only the injunction Deleted. On the basis that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing their ownership in the suit, the plaintiffs' lawyers had rightly argued that the appellate court had failed to resolve the trial court's argument, which resulted in plaintiff's counsel. It was decided to dismiss the claim of. The trial court did not declare any case through trial, the defendants were not demanded to present evidence on the same authenticity as the dispute was misunderstood because of the trial case. Plaintiffs could not prove that the defendants were forcibly seized. There was no revenue tax for four years before filing a dispute in the disputed area, however, the defendants presented as a testimony that resulted in an appeal decision and an invalid decision to have the decree placed in the court's jurisdiction. The trial court's order restated. close r \ n famous lower court advocate from Upper Dir lawyer