Sections 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XXXXX, RR 1 and 2 plaintiff filed a declaration against the defendants for a permanent and mandatory injunction on the basis that their son was driving a D-Class bus stand. , Under license, spent the last 5 years and a large amount of money on the construction of the same, but the authorities rejected the plaintiff's request for a transfer of the said position, as well as the plaintiff's case. The request was also moved along. Trial Court's Trial Hearing Trial Court rejected the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction, and the appellate court maintained that the trial court's license to operate the D-Class bus stand was granted to the plaintiff's son that year. Expired in 2005. However, the matters of the stand were administered by the plaintiff because the plaintiff's son was involved in various murder cases and the bus stand was absconding and the said stand was also in an unacceptable state as the showcase notice was given to the plaintiff's son. About but no response from authorities Authorities unanimously decided to withdraw the permit of the plaintiff's son regarding the operation of the bus stand, without the plaintiff's unauthorized act, the bus stand was not licensed Couldn't allow running. High Court refuses to interfere with results obtained by court through legal cover
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
