Section 44 Case Law Claims Defamation Claims to be a Tenant of Shops Department Claims and Order of Sentencing Against the Cantonment Board Trial Court dismisses suit filed by defendants And the decision by the appellate court hearing was out of the property. In this total area, which was dedicated property, which was under the auspices of the Cantonment Board, the Department of Defense claimed that it was part of the property review number, which was read as an empty plot, to draw the correct conclusion. No further evidence was presented that corresponds to the shops. He was in the survey number and not in the survey number, whose ownership was with the apex department, there was a serious question of ownership, according to which the department was under his control while the cantonment board also supported the same party. Had established its claim on Their claims are based on some documents that the plaintiff failed to show that the property contained in the same section of deferred property, which was given to the department, but the cantonment board also applied to it. Failing to establish the title, both courts failed to address such an important question. In this case, the High Court, under the exercise of the jurisdiction of the amendment, set aside the decisions and orders passed by the courts below and gave the parties a full opportunity to establish it by mere evidence. The case was remanded to the trial court, which allowed the amendment.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
