NAVEED RAZA versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, CANTONMENT LANDS AND BUILDING DEPARTM
A. XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Application under Sections 42, 55 and 39 and XXXX, RR 1 & 2, CPC Permanently Dismissed, Claimed by Defendant by Plaintiff Application with the cancellation and cancellation case, as well as their representatives and agents, should not demolish the existing structure raised on a particular plot, nor, by any means, be resolved by the Cantonment Board until the case is decided. Implementing / implementing the instructions issued to eliminate it was every matter. Decide on its own merits, and the plaintiff had to prove his case and the weakness of the other side could not be taken advantage of, if any of the three essential things / components were considered for the injunction and it was not necessary, So that plaintiff must be a strong, good primary case but a plausible argument was the plaintiff, in the present case, admittedly he had built the structure by spending a large sum of money, even though it was a matter from the relevant authorities. The construction project can be done without approval. The Board of Defendants also acknowledged the existing structures and structures raised by the plaintiff, which are said to have been made in 2004, if the plaintiff was required to pay regular fees in lieu of regular fees. Was ready and ready, if a copy of it was also presented to the Cantonment Board for approval of the plan, the plaintiff alleges that the construction of other adjoining buildings against the defendants was regularly regulated. And all such facts require the formation of cases and evidence and the matter will take a long time,
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
