The trial court for the declaration, agreement termination and occupation of sections 42, 39, and 9 cases, dismissed the judgment filed by the plaintiff and the judgment filed by the appellate court and the judgment against the order, the appellate court The documentary evidence, presented by the relevant documents, was an agreement that showed that professionals in the interests of the defendants enjoyed the occupation of the premises in dispute because the evidence on record also showed It was proved that the plaintiff's grandfather purchased the house in 1939 in dispute. And that the two rooms were rented out for the benefit of the defendants. Defendants' objection to the limitation was also baseless, unless the rights and law recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with, unless these matters were amended. Authorization cannot be interrupted High Court dismisses findings of jurisdictional wrongdoing, illegal proceedings or material misconduct
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
