The suit was issued simultaneously by the plaintiff for the declaration, possession and permanent injunction of Sections 9, 42 and S4. The defendants alleged that the material presented on the record and evidence presented by the parties was considered. Was not made, but the defendants cannot identify the facts and were not allegedly considered during the debate even before the lawyer for the defendants failed to explain such events. The cases were settled separately before the trial evidence was recorded and taken up by the accused. The same legal objections were also disclosed, which were related to the cost of the case, due to the prosecution and misconduct of the parties, the adverse defendants decided to raise the objection in relation to the value of the suit filed by the plaintiff. , But no specific evidence was brought to the record by the defendants in this regard. The plaintiff was assessing court fees and jurisdiction in Medina, which was to be relied upon until the plaintiff could not prove his claim in favor of the plaintiffs that the defendant had sued Property was sold. In favor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, one was properly ruled that he had failed to present a case for review of unknown decisions; concurrent decisions were upheld.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
