Section 42 and 54 of the 54 plaintiffs filed a permanent injunction claiming to be the owner of the disputed land. And the alleged change in favor of the defendants was based on fraud and misrepresentation. It is contended that the sale agreement was executed in favor of the plaintiff and as a result this change in the question was met with the defendant by the plaintiff, the trial court dismissed the appellate court case on appeal. , Allowed it and set it aside. The thumbs of the trial court's decision and the dispute regarding the injunction dispute were not tolerated - the defendant's impression was that one of the defendants made a contradictory statement regarding the payment of the outstanding balance, which was in fact a clear contradiction with the registration of the Revenue Officers. ? The defendants, who appeared as defendants, did not confirm the accused's statements. The appellate court rejected the application by the two witnesses and the evidence which was in the evidence, was rejected by the High Court. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
