Article 22 and the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 to hold a DDOR (judicial) court proceeding against the applicants who denied the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and claimed ownership of the suit property. Constitutional application for recovery The landlord and tenant suit but the trial court ruled the case to the extent that the applicant removed the district collector, in the appeal, the trial was adjourned so that the suit announces the title of the property Please refer to the civil court for. It is also permissible that when the applicants explicitly denied the existence of the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, the respondents could only prove such property by a decree of this competent civil court, Because the district collector rightly directed that the revenue courts had no jurisdiction in this regard. Respondents seeking a declaration of title from a competent civil company, petitioner's Commissioner's view that a second appeal was not accessible to the Commissioner's Revenue (Appellate Court) was misconstrued, pursuant to the Border Tenancy Act, Under 1950, the second appeal was eligible if the original court order or order could not have been confirmed in the appeal to the district collector. Only to be decided by a competent civil court, so the eviction order was set aside and the district collector was restored by the High Court. Constitutional application was allowed \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
