Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XII, R 6, O XXXIX, Rr 1, 2 and Section 151 sued the plaintiff for declaratory and permanent injunction against the defendant that he had the suit land that the defendant had. The son was sold to one-third of the plaintiff's trial court through a power of attorney, which the party ordered to retain status and, at the trial, with the consent of the plaintiff's lawyer, sued the landlord at his own risk and Permitted construction work. In case the plaintiff succeeds in the plaintiff's case, demolish the structures without any compensation, on the basis of the plaintiff's signed statement / promise, the application was dismissed under 0 XI, R6, CPC and by the plaintiff. The contempt of court was attacked by the trial court but the appellate court rejected the appellant's counsel in the review proceedings, claiming that his signature on the trial court's order sheet did not sign his consent. In the publications and order sheets of the legal courts, the doctrine of authenticity was presented and a special holiness was attached to it, Based on the allegations, which were unwarranted, the court's official record could not be smashed or indicated by the trial court's order sheet. That the relevant order was approved with the consent of the parties and the applicant could not be allowed to go to a different position at any interval, the applicant could not bend and could not reject the order passed with his consent. ? \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
