Both the plaintiff and the defendant were co-defendants in the suit area for a permanent injunction applying for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXXX, RR 1 and 2, the accused is allegedly a valuable Shops were being constructed on the part of the plaintiffs under the suit land set up a permanent injunction case to temporarily remove the order by the plaintiff to prevent the plaintiff from altering the nature of the suit land until its official distribution. The petition was also filed. Both the courts temporarily refused to grant the order. Plaintiffs noted the defendants' action, saying that construction could be considered at their own risk and cost. Defendant's defendants specifically stated in their written statement that they are the sole owner of the suit land. And that there was no question of his distribution, but at the same time, his case for distribution to the revenue court was prima facie pending, with the intention of retaining control over the valuable part of the commonwealth of the accused. Questioned The construction of the shops, which apparently had a potential commercial value, was presented to the trial court by the defendants and stated that it was presented in a hurry. The document was not presented by the author at all. Although it was considered an affidavit, neither of the two courts below made the simultaneous mistake of relying on an incomplete and unverified affidavit to disregard the general rule. Was to generally allow the shareholder to alter the nature of the common ground
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
