MUHAMMAD YOUNAS versus TOWN COMMITTEE WARBARTON, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NANKANA SAHIB
O VII, R 11 & O XXXIX, Rr 1 & 2 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 54 In the interest of the plaintiff, filed a permanent injunction claiming that he had registered the disputed property for sale. Was purchased by the DEAD and in 2008 the plaintiff sought to seize the property illegally and forcibly in the interests of the disputed property professionals, with the approval of the interim relief defendant's litigation grounds. Appealing that the disputed property was a street, the appeal was filed by the Appellate Court on appeal, despite the dismissal of public use in the High Court. Deleted. Held, it is proved that the defendants made the infringement? ?????????? The defendant had no connection with the claimant's ownership of the plaintiff's disputed land by adding it to his property if he had legally and legally purchased it from a real owner, but in the case of the said land, the plaintiff did not can do. Add ??????????? The plaintiff was not entitled to seek any legal asylum from the public streets that were being subjected to violations in his property; the courts did not find any illegal interference or material irregularity in order to perpetuate their encroachments in which both Interventions were demanded by the courts. The High Court dismissed the defendant's request for a review remotely to remove the encroachment and initiate the process necessary to restore. ?????????? Opportunity for the public without delay
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
