NASEEBULLAH KHAN versus MST. ZAINUH JANA ALIAS ZAINUH BIBI
Under Section 42 and 54 of the Case for Declaration and Permanent Order, the applicants filed a lawsuit against the applicants in connection with the dispute over the claim of their property, which the applicants also executed by the second respondent. Claiming ownership of the said house on the basis of the receipt of the said sale and claiming for its title and permanent declaration, the injunction against the defendants was merged with both rivals and to record the supporting and contradictory evidence and After hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed the case filed by the petitioners. And the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the order passed by the trial court was deemed appropriate in the appeal. Applicants failed to prove to Ones Probindi that he was the owner of the suit house on the basis of the allegedly sold certificate, which was neither proved nor shown in the evidence. The lawyer for the applicants failed to identify any illegal, irregular, false advertising. Failure to read proof or scope defect in an unknown direction may result in the rental of the courts below; the facts which are based on the facts cannot be determined by the High Court in any jurisdiction unless the record It is not established by any of the strong and concrete evidence available that they were fictitious, inaccurate, or because of a qualification request for a misrepresentation / misreading of the evidence, these conditions were rejected.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
