Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD INAYAT versus SAHLOON

Articles 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), a declaration in the interest of the plaintiffs and 5 115 suits for injunctive proposals, claimed in their claim that they had 46 kanals and 11 marshals as illegally occupied tenants. The land was occupied and the non-commercial tenancy in these entries was left to record in association with the defendants and there was a sale and exchange transaction under which other defendants in interest. An attempt was made to declare that the land owned by him was in possession of the suit land as a non-occupied tenant. And that the defendants should be barred from judging their view of the litigation, but it was in the interest of the litigants at the trial, not to be otherwise excluded except by the process of law. Should have been the person who alleged that the defendants violated the provisional order. Given this and they seized the land, filed an application under section 144, 151 and A. XXXIX, R 2 (3), A XXI, R 32, CPC praying that the plaintiff Was temporarily suspended on the occasion of the injunction, so the matter was restored to appeal and the appellate court directed that the possession be restored immediately. Further, the defendants objected, saying that the seizure could not be reached to the defendants. The executive court said that the objection was directed at the defendants to grant possession of the land filed by the plaintiffs that the decree was dismissed. By the predecessor top civil advocates from Kunri lawyer