Find a Lawyer

MAQSOOD-UR-REHMAN versus ABDUL MANAN

Section 54 Permanent injunction Defendant claims that he has begun to use the route of questioning since his ancestors, in addition, the natural drainage of his house continued from afar. Is all It is that the defendants were not legally entitled to the construction under which the plaintiff's house was barred from drainage because the plaintiff further claimed that the plaintiff's bathroom below Was not entitled to be demolished. After visiting this place, inspection of the local commissioner according to the legitimate places, the defendants have promoted the incomplete construction which has obstructed the route of dispute and the natural / rain water from the plaintiff's local commissioner's house. The drainage also stands for cross-inspection by the parties. The local commissioner confirmed the facts of the blockade and demolition of the bathroom path by the defendants, and the obstruction of easement rights in favor of the plaintiff was clearly mentioned in the plaintiff and morality was also claimed by him. Although the particular case was correct, it was not struck by the trial court, but was a matter for the rights holder, because the plaintiff's permanent order was dismissed and the order for the evidence was sufficiently covered by the point of dispute. The courts found the Municipal Commission report to be neutral, after which the two facts were disputed. Harmony was not identified Detection. In light of the evidence available on record, the High Court did not guarantee any interference with its revised jurisdiction. divorce advocates from FR Peshawar / Kohat lawyer