PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI versus SYED NASEEMUDDIN ALVI
The mandatory declaration of section 42 and title 54 and the final result of the mandatory injunction were the two courts below the plaintiff purchased a plot from the plaintiff and after paying the plaintiff, the defendant issued an allotment letter to the plaintiff. The complaint was that the defendant did not move / change the plot in his name, despite several requests, the two courts decided the case in favor of the accused. If all the conclusions recorded by the two courts do not result in reading the bad news and not reading the evidence, it cannot be the same. Interfering with the defendants failed to prove that the findings recorded by the two courts below are in any way the result of not reading the misrepresentation and evidence as the parties heard at length and the evidence presented by them. After examining and other related material, the following two courts have come to the correct conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to place an allotment order in his name. Both the courts were well below. And the defendant has the required formalities for transferring the plot in his favor. Was charged with responsibility for operations. The High Court had refused to interfere with the concurrent decisions and dismissed the orders passed by the two courts below the two appeals in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
