Sections 2 (2) (9), 33, 47, 51, 115, and XIV, R 1, O XX, R 6 & O XXI, R 11 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 8, 42 and 54 By way of trial, the trial and permanent injunction under the judgment and the decree that the trial court did not mention relief in the acquisition of the right of possession, except that the exemption and suit in the declaration of the plaintiff's honor. The execution request for the recovery of the possession of the defendant's request that such order was not executed was always the correct execution of the order of the court rejecting the request made by the appellate court. A decision that will have a command, therefore, the decision in this case should always be in terms of the decision. In it, the trial court erred in presenting a case relating to the acquisition of suit property, while the defendant claimed to be in his possession, while the trial court declared the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property and defendant. Unlawfully withheld information about the plaintiff's business and property, although the particular claimant claimed, could not be mentioned in the unidentified verdict, thus its approval could not be ascertained, but rather It will not be allowed. The execution court can neither go behind the order during the proceedings. Neither give any relief, which was not given in the verdict as there was no challenge by any party. The impeachment decision was finalized. The order of receipt of suit property possession was not executed. The court dismissed the request for execution, setting an inappropriate order
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
