Proof of approval of Section 134 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), the alternative way to prohibit the joint possession order was the joint owner of the suit centers, and the plaintiff's complaint is that the defendant erected a wall and obstructed it. ? The passage he had been using for a long time with validity was a right of ease by way of claim, such a requirement must be absolute and if an alternative method or passage was available. Then no one can claim such a claimant. The witnesses acknowledged that the plaintiff was in fact enjoying access to his property through another part, but he was claiming such right through the land as an alternative route to the defendant, thus The case for the exercise of his entitlement was not available to the plaintiff in a lower appellate court finding. The issue related to the issuance of a mandatory injunction in favor of this was lawful and the property was in joint possession of both parties, therefore, the order was not applicable to facilitate the suspension unless the division had reviewed the High Court. The lower appellate court's revision terms were excluded from the jurisdiction of the court.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
