Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM

Plaintiff's declaration of possession under section 42 and possession 42, while keeping the final results of fact, misreading and non-reading of evidence by the courts below, the defendants sought recovery of suit on the basis that they Is owned by the defendant and has exceeded them. Whereas, Plaintiffs denied any encroachment on any of the Plaintiffs' property, the trial court appointed the Vice-Chancellor Local Local Commission for disputed land boundaries, and the basis of the Report of the Local Commission However, the claim was dismissed, the appellate court also dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. It was through the plaintiffs that both the courts misrepresented the report of the dissolution prepared by the local commissioner. The trial court erroneously observed in its judgment that the disclosure report showed that the defendant never infringed on the measles number PF plaintiff. The local commission did not report any encroachment on the plaintiff's land FFS The following two courts made such observations without reading the report of the Local Commission High Court, leaving the jurisdiction of the review in the judgment of both the courts. And set orders and the case filed in favor of the plaintiff was allowed to be reviewed in the circumstances. top advocates from Mangowal lawyer