MUHAMMAD KASHIF CHAUDHRY versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN
Section 13 Property Act (I82 of I82), Section 52 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), O VI, R 17 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 7 Constitution Petition Les pendens, Principles of Applicable Principles, Improvement of Pendency Improvement Impressions The suit vendors demanded an amendment to their requests to enter the money they spent during the suitplay taken by the vendors for the improvements they had made. There was no injunction against that which is permissible, in view of such request by the vendors was not entertaining any of the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882 The matter cannot be dealt with in the case and the shopkeeper did not seek any permission for the alleged improvement during the case. Did the order make any difference? Both courts refused to allow the modification of the written statement in accordance with the law, and contrary to the original claim raised in the written statement filed in 2007, the amended petition was submitted by the shopkeepers. In view of the alleged claim, the arguers were not properly entertained, the High Court refused to interfere with the orders passed by the two. Whether the following courts were illegal or without legal authority, no interference was sought by the High Court in exercising the constitutional jurisdiction under which the orders passed by the two courts below the petition were dropped.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
