O xxxIX, Rr 1, 2 and O XLI, R 27 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 54 of the Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 42 (12) of the Constitution Violation was effectively ordered that the defendant prevented the defendant from interfering with the suit land during the approval of the suit, the plaintiff moved the petition for violation of the injunction, the trial court On the ground that the plaintiff's dismissal appeal failed to prove the alleged infringement under the court, the trial court filed the order, the High Court upholding the claim of the appellants under the plaintiff's claim. The CJ's order was also denied that the defendants were ordered to stay, but even though the defendants violated the injunction, the defendant was given ample opportunity to prove his case. , But he failed to prove that the injunction was issued against those accused of disobedient disobedience on this matter and could be served, against which contempt and action could be taken against them. O xxxxx, R 2, will also be prosecuted under CPC Standing Order at the same time the defendant acted on it. And he was made aware that the plaintiffs had to prove from the record that the plaintiff was ordered to stay on the plaintiff for failure to prove that order. The following courts were allowed to dismiss the plaintiffs' pleadings. The plaintiffs had to prove their case through credible evidence in the trial court, if they failed to produce a document in the trial court, then in the case of an appeal. Request them
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2012
