Article 13 and 23 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 Second role of suit property for possession of property, harmony of facts by the courts from interference in such courts In a similar result, the High Court, in review, had examined, scanned and examined each material piece of evidence in relation to the matter in which the parties were competing, and for these reasons a final conclusion was reached. In which it was reported that Bhatt was running the oven. A cover and a spare quota were being used for the purpose of storing furnaces and furnishings, etc. Although the purpose of the use of the premises mentioned above for any other purpose is accompanied by proof of sale agreement, case, title / title of the case and all such goods, notice of the piece of evidence was taken in the decision of which it was named. Was. The High Court and Re-publicize the evidence on the said point in their original context, which, together with the facts, are not considered in their original context by the courts as they discover these facts, and they Is estimated. The High Court's decision was not open to any exception. The High Court's decision was not to face any illicit, weakening light of the principles established by the Supreme Court justifying interference in the unitary search of facts; the High Court through the Supreme Court to demand any intervention. Appeal against the decision was dismissed without merit
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
