WAJIHA ALIAS KHAN SHEERIN versus MUHAMMAD NIAZ KHAN 17
Section 54 and Pla 55 Defendants sought injunction against the defendants in connection with the suit property, ordering the defendants to cease raising the buildings, claiming that their possession of the suit land resulted from family division. I was from when the long bailiff of the court reported that the defendants raised the buildings on the suit property up to the roof level, the defendant did not file a lawsuit in the initial phase of construction when the defendants had more than 12 mars of suit land. If the owner is shown they can accept the affidavit in the trial court and send the defendants up. Let's accept the risk and cost while allowing an increase in construction affidavit, the trial court is not bound to suit Properties to expand the construction for the protection of equal parts was not a bed of claimants. And in the case of the injunction, the construction was to be demolished and after the sprit structure was removed, the original position of the suit property was restored by the trial court accepting the defendants' under-taxation and protected the interests of the defendants here. Unless otherwise the plaintiff will not be able to retain any immunity. Compensation against loss to defendants, because the plaintiffs owned a one-piece land. Since the defendants were the owners of this suit property and have already extended the construction to its level, the decision and order were given by the appellate court below, under which the trial court's order was set aside. Not according to the law, the impugned order of the appellate court was set aside and the high court reversed the trial court's order.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
