Claims for simultaneous discovery of links to claimants for declaration and injunction under Articles 42 and 54 54 have been claimed by the courts below and the plot is owned by the defendants in the decree. , In which the plots facilitated plots and the defendants claimed that they intended to dispose of it. The appellate court maintained that the plaintiff's verdict and decree were upheld by the trial, the defendants were not able to establish the fact that either the schemes were approved by the authorities or the plots. The open space or facility was allocated for the purpose of plots. Defendants did not provide much evidence for the exclusion of the evidence placed on them. Authorities never approved any scheme for alleged open space development, nor did any legal order, site plan or notification The series made or the plot issued in this regard was that of the plaintiffs who were well purchaser / its owner and they do not fall under the definition of Ame. The search for net plots filed by the two courts below is legal, Was accurate and on record and is subject to any illegal or irregularities by the trial court or the lower appellate court Both the courts had not identified the defendants did not have any evidence of abuse or neglect. Refused to interfere with concurrent decisions, and orders passed down by review by two courts were excluded
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
