O XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), the defendant in section 42, with a permanent injunction, filed a lawsuit to grant relief that the disputed property was fraudulent and fraudulent with the defendant from his predecessor. Was declared defensive. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction on the basis of the claim that he was a profitable buyer of the disputed land and filed a sale in his favor, the plaintiff approved the trial court's order. An appeal was filed against him, which was also dismissed by the appellant. The sale proceedings were executed on the accuracy of the court, and in the interest of the plaintiff, the predecessor survived for six years after implementing the sale proceedings, but in 1991 the same change was not approved and Until 2009 no objection was raised against them. In the absence of any lawsuit, a temporary conclusion can be drawn, based on mere evidence in favor of the plaintiff and only on the basis of the allegations that the alterations in addition to the work of the sale were counterfeit and fraudulent. Which was the integration of inconvenience and irreparable damage. The plaintiff failed to identify any misrepresentation in favor of the plaintiff or the petition was dismissed for lack of proof
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
