O XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 8 suits no division of the family division or has nothing to do with the disputed land effect The claimant temporarily divided the order with the request for a stay order. Has filed a seizure claim claiming to be a claimant. His shareholder in the disputed property cannot be deprived of the use of his share because he acquired personal interest in every inch of the undivided territory and claimed on the basis that the division of the family resulted from the possession of the defendants. I was in the Commonwealth for the past 25 years with a total land disputed land and since the plaintiff had no affiliation or connection with the said division, the appeal was dismissed for appeal against the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. I was only exposed to these accuracy records. The trial was at an early stage in which the plaintiff had the right to dispute the land and it was not yet to be determined the usefulness of the evidence The defendants had exclusively occupied the disputed property for the past 25 years on account of family division. The Prima facie case was not explicitly excluded in favor of the defendants who had spent large sums on the construction and installation of CNG stations. The injunction to restrain defendants from operating CNG stations under the equipment and machinery will be more inconvenient than the plaintiff who had no affiliation or affiliation with the disputed land for the past 25 years, if any. If so, it will be calculated in terms of monetary damages for the plaintiff, irrevocable or unlawful by the courts
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
