GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE versus RAHEEM BAKHSH
Articles 42 and 54 of the trial and permanent injunction dismissed the trial, but the appellate court on appeal ruled that the plaintiff had owned the suit property since the time of his ancestors. And he presented only two oral witnesses and his statements as recorded by the lawyer were not presented to the trial court by the plaintiffs in the title of proceedings in the interest of his predecessor, none of the defendant's witnesses. It was not clear how the property was dissolved on his predecessor, even among the plaintiffs who appeared at the hearing, It also failed to disclose where the property was in the interest of his predecessor. The attorney was also unable to disclose that when the disputed variations were filed, the appellate court relied solely on the oral statements of the witnesses. And neither discussed nor analyzed the material contained on the record, no documentary evidence was presented, nor did the witnesses appear during the trial specifically presented to the plaintiffs' ownership. ? And the channel through which the plaintiffs' suit property was transmitted even though it faced limitations, but the appellate court found that the appellate court, on both counts, had filed the plaintiffs well, misunderstood. Was granted, with the result given by the appellate court without any basis as nothing was in the record which would indicate that the property owned by the property before it was ever owned. About the lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Burden
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
