Articles 12 and 42 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O xxxxx, Rr 1 & 2 suit which is for the plaintiff and declare su. The matter was that he was the owner of the Shimlath Diya in dispute and the accused who did not own the suit land. Were. Illegal Occupation Its plaintiffs, along with the plaintiff, filed an application to maintain the trial, initially issuing a stay order, but the following appeals court later dismissed the same against the dismissal order. Withdrew the appeal, the plaintiffs filed a review petition before the High Court, which was accepted by the High Court in an unacceptable order, stating that the gift proceedings regarding one of the shareholders of the land. After the acquisition of the legal status quo remains the final decision of the defendants. Those who became shareholders in the Shamilat Diwas after receiving the gift process, cannot be excluded from the said land without regular practice by participating regularly. Could retain its possession, even if its share was higher than that of the plaintiffs, until the plaintiffs had a regular division of land, which the plaintiff himself had recognized that the defendants had. A house consisting of land and six rooms was built when the plaintiffs who had shared the land entered the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff had no good case in their favor if the house was built by the defendants. , Demolished, will cause irreparable harm to the defendants. The balance of the facility was also in favor of the defendants, especially when the defendants: had entered into an agreement that would eventually be ordered against them.
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2012
