JAVED MASIH versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
Section 13 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 Attack on Tenant Withdrawal Defense Final results of the fact by interference under the Supreme Court rules, the tenants did not deposit the rent as directed by the Controller of Rent, Therefore, their defense was dismissed and the eviction order was issued against them by the lower appellate court, the lower appellate court upheld, and at the same time through the High Court, any evidence of the tenant of the property. Failing to identify which has been misread or read by the courts of the Supreme Court, Detection will not be back. Recorded by the courts below, unless it can be shown that the evidence was contrary to the evidence or that it is clearly impossible or wrong to accept it is equivalent to establishing a serious abortion of justice. Or if its principles are misused. If such evidence is to be appreciated or ultimately proved to be physically impossible, the Supreme Court's rule in the Ice and Civil Appeals places the burden on the appellants to show that the High Court The conclusions recorded cannot be retained on the record and should be interfered with by the Supreme Court tenants so that such parameters can be brought to trial and no additions can be made. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the eviction order passed by the courts when the appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court regarding the question of public importance law.
