Section 47, AXXI, RR 10 and Section 23 ordered a specific relief act (I of 1877), sections 8 and 42, along with the suit filed by the plaintiff on objection to the accuracy of the record and the right to possession. Is gone In favor of the courts below, it applied for the implementation of the decree on which the defendants / decision-makers raised objections under Section 47, CPC, which was a court of law between the parties. An order was issued to determine the question of There was no need to implement the order, exclude or satisfy and file a separate case, when no objections were raised by the decision-makers during the approval of the application for decree execution. In spite of the complete information I was filed by the plaintiff / decree holder during the execution proceedings which stated some dilution numbers and notice was given to the applicants of the judgment who failed. The numbers were the same ones mentioned in the claimant, who were under the decree, the judge's loan He was unable to explain the complaint and could not tell how it was changed in favor of the property. While the civil nazir's report contradicted the decision, the contrary, the prosecution had further failed to explain the correct measure of the property in the decree and the relevant shares of the parties, most notably its own review request. In the absence of any qualification, he was rejected and the unclean orders of the lower courts were upheld.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
