AD-MASS ADVERTISING (SMC-PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE versus CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER
Claiming that the defendant obtained the license of the defendant, with a permanent order of application under section 60 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), 0 XXXIX, RR 1 and 2 Suite O XXXXX, RR 1 & 2, CPC. The plaintiff is invested in the plaintiff's property and because the plaintiff had taken an interest in the property and could not be immediately disposed of, the plaintiff was contested by the plaintiff. Cannot claim rights under the alleged license agreement when the country was in exclusive possession of it. The defendant retained the property with the plaintiff and the plaintiff was obliged to surrender his structure, a sign board, at the expiration of this license. On appeal, the trial court dismissed the interim injunction seeking approval, but It was later emptied. The plaintiff's only legitimate claim for permanent investment was guaranteed; in her affirmation the plaintiff was at liberty to disclose through the evidence that the defendant assured her investment was safe. Such claims cannot be considered at the crossroads of the processing of a prima fee, the legal right of the claimant under the license agreement was of limited nature as the licensee was in possession of the plaintiff's advertising. The defendant was being intercepted by the defendant, who admitted that he had also formally excluded the claimant's claim of formally acquiring tenancy. The contents of section 60 of the Ease of Act, 1882, were not clear on the record that it is believed that a transient order could not be issued. The defendant accepted some of the enhanced status of the plaintiff on his property
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
