Sections 42 and 55 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XIV, the RI suit for the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for the declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that the Settlement Commissioner canceled the allotment order which was in the name of the same person. Was on In the interests of his predecessor but the defendants of different parents contested on the basis that the original order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not challenged, the trial of the appellate court was dismissed on appeal, the trial was dismissed. Remand was received for. After giving the plaintiffs the necessary party action and challenging the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, an effective order could not be approved for the decision of the court until the identity of the person was resolved, the trial was a matter for the court. The decision had failed to fail. It was a genuine dispute between the parties and chose to completely dismiss the case on the complaint. Necessary When not involved with the required parties, the appellate court concluded that the defendants must be sent to the required parties. Should have been allowed to sue and the amendment to the Plaintiff's High Court was partially granted to the trial court in the interest of the plaintiffs with the direction of the trial court to decide the issue of identity , Excluding another request for review on the same decision.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
