Sections 54 & 54 54 The plaintiffs' declaration, along with the perpetual injunction, because they are the owners of the disputed property staircase and the defendants, should be permanently barred from interfering with the said property and under it Case filed for Permanent Order Prohibition. It was claimed on the basis that the original owner of the disputed property had entered into an affiliation agreement with them and said that on the basis of the agreement, the defendant had become joint owner of the disputed property and the sale of the alleged property by the plaintiff was illegal. The trial court dismissed the case. The plaintiff's appellate court granted her permission on appeal and overturned the trial court's ruling and its ruling in which the litigation record was recorded that the plaintiff was the sole staircase owner because he said that through registered cell deed The stairs were purchased and he was in possession of the sale process. However, it was never challenged. If at any point the defendant had allowed the defendant to use the stairs to get closer to his floor, the plaintiffs' right of ease would not have arisen in this way. That the sale process was a legal document that was never canceled or declared invalid. By any court, the High Court allowed the request for review and set aside the judgment and order passed by the appellate court and restored the one approved by the trial court.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
