The section 9 trial trial for mason profiteering and decree was dismissed by the trial court under section 9 of the Special Relief Act 1877, along with the lawsuit for maison profit, and the appellate court decided The appeal against was dismissed. In the trial court, the legal appellate court should have first decided the nature of the case. Whether it came under section 8 or section 9 of the Special Relief Act 1877, in the jurisdiction to appeal the upper forum in the appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the appellate court found that the mere increase in profit was merely a change in relief. Has not come Section 9 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, expressly dismissed the nature of the lawsuit and the appeal. Mason's right to recover a profit would include the determination of the right to own property under a legitimate title, and it could earn a profit, a question of title cannot be considered under the suit. For the recovery of possession under section 9 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, in which a plaintiff may be entitled to a decree for possession, only on the basis that he was in possession and was acquitted. Yes, such a claim could not be claimed. Filed under Section 9 of the Special Relief Act, 1877. If a plaintiff wishes to include and continues to pray for profit, he must declare his case for the Special Relief Act, Was for possession under Section 8 of 1877, and the present disposition was established under false impression or false impression which could add profits, not all disputes between the parties could be resolved, unless the plaintiff accepted the case. ? Its choices
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
