According to their share of the Section 2 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), the suit for division 115 suit was jointly owned by the plaintiff, the plaintiff stated that a lawsuit was filed for distribution in connection with the shop in which the local commissioner was appointed. Who had submitted his claim with the consent of these parties. In the report proposing three modes of separation into three separate personas, the trial court ruled, according to one person, that the plaintiff had challenged the appeal, which was appealed by the appellate court. Had accepted the decision and the decision aside. The court and the case were decided according to another data, there is no dispute between the parties that the four shares were owned by the plaintiff while the defendants were the owners of the two shares, according to the data, which was subsequently approved by the appellate court. Was. The only part of the plaintiffs to come to was the unequal division of the parties. The parties were the real brother. If they showed gentleness to each other, no other settlement could be reported between them. Nothing illegal was found in the invalid judgment. Gone, review deleted
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
