Sections 8, 21 and 23 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), Sections 9, 42 and 54 suit sued each other for the possession, declaration and permanent injunction of the rival parties. The suit was filed and the defendant filed a claim for declaration and permanent injunction, pointing to the aforementioned claim, both rival suits were settled, on appeal of the defendant, two persons were nominated for the post of referee. was done. And the trial court appointed a referee, who submitted his report in compliance with the trial court's trial court's ruling, dismissed the defendants' decision based on the said report and dismissed the defendant's claim, saying that the verdict and ruling The letter was impressed and the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal, the defendant's order was considered by the respondent in the order that the said order ground could not be considered as the referee was appointed with the consent of the parties. And the High Court not only approved the appointment of the referee, but also directed the decision on the fate of the suit, which was decided on the basis of the referee question statement arising out of the suit's lawlessness. And the matter was settled under his orders. An amendment court cannot allow reconsideration of an appeal filed against this order. The court correctly approved the verdict and decision, according to the referee's report available on the record, in which case, the review was dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
