The decision to recover the possession under Section 8 and 42 and the decision on the disclosures of the lower appellate court jurisdiction have claimed that the suit property is ancestral property and its possession has been recovered and summoned to trial. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs but, by section 42 of the Lower Appellate Special Relief Act, 1877, the appeal of the case of infringement of a rightful or legal role was dismissed and the plaintiffs claimed that the dispute was in dispute. The property is ancestral property, but none of the defendants testify that the property was declared a property in the dispute. Even though the plaintiff may be in possession of the property in all the disputes, the mere possession could not be obtained by itself, nor would anyone be allowed to seek relief for a declaration of relief under the provisions of the Relief Relief Act, 1877. Can keep Some of the ingredients enable someone to order in their favor The lower appellate court lacks the results and they are missing, which is why it is necessary to lose weight if it is inherently defective, irregular, or malicious. If not confronted, the plaintiffs do not have the right to sue in their possession because the defendants had to prove their case by the power of their evidence and could not exploit the defendants' weaknesses. The High Court refuses to interfere in the decision and the lower appellate court-approved injunction is dismissed in the circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
