Appeal or revision scope suit for recovery of possession of section 9 suit was rejected by the trial court Appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of section 9 of the Special Relief Act 1877 by the trial court in which any order or injunction Appeals were explicitly banned from. With regard to any order or decree, the section power of review was similarly removed, whereby the intention of law enforcement was to finalize the orders and orders explicitly approved in the suit under section 9 of the Relief Act, 1877. Seems to give. The said section provided an immediate remedy for the recovery of possession, where a person was evicted from immovable property, otherwise the law did not require the plaintiff to establish his title to the property and he was merely a former The property could have been successful by showing and the purpose of Section 9 misconduct was explicitly to discourage the forcible placement that no action was taken under the section to establish its title to the property and Ban once against any of the parties who have sued for the acquisition of possession, under section The negative effects of Arti have had, after documentary and oral consideration, an alternative to the trial court's restoration of possession and the regular trial for a regular trial. The plaintiffs' evidence, however, came to the conclusion that they had failed to prove their possession of the disputed land; the plaintiff's lawyer failed to identify any misrepresentation or non-reading by the plaintiff at trial. , In the circumstances, was found. On the qualities
