Section 10 repealed the Iowa Property and Homelessness Act (XIV of 1975), Section 3 Civil Procedure (V of 1908), Section 9 and O VII, R7 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 8 The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the proclamation and permanent injunction shop in the Comprehensive Building allotted to the plaintiff by the Department of Settlement, while the defendant filed a lawsuit after a permanent injunction. Excluding the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff's case, the appellate court's defendants pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff. And that in the absence of relief from the possession of the plaintiffs, certain relief was not protected under section 42 of the Relief Act, 1877, in which case the plaintiff did not challenge any order of settlement, which the plaintiff had placed above his shop. Had demanded the declaration of the exclusive right of the proprietor of the roof. The civil court was not barred by law to decide the matter, the defendant filed a written statement denying the jurisdiction of the civil court, and after the failure of the case, a permanent order A lawsuit was filed for immunity and the appeal could not be allowed to challenge the jurisdiction of the civil court under OO. VII, R 7, CPC, may provide such relief because in the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff cannot be said to be outside the roof ceiling, in which case it is not possible to use a place daily. Express its occupation, while in other cases, just down the property will be enough to protect the other side from using the ant roof.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
