Articles 42 and 54 through the plaintiff plaintiff alleging that the defendants violated their territory, ordered the defendants to remove the pile of material they had sued the Commissioner of Sutland, appointed with the consent of the parties. Prepare your report, record the statements of the parties, in which both parties stated that they accept the limitation on the spot trial court by the Commissioner, based on the proper definition of the evidence and in the light of the Commissioner's report. ? The Syed order for the occupation of the defendants' land was upheld till the approval of the High Court, the three courts entered unanimous conclusions and also analyzed the facts of the encroachments recorded on the record. Evidence from the evidence has been proved. The results of the recording, neither finding any misreading, nor reading or misreading of the evidence, were smoothly maintained by the court-recorded NGS, and there was no justification that the defendants were against With no claim on the suit land, the plaintiff's ownership was recognized that the defendants had failed to present a case for interference of the Supreme Court, the appeal was dismissed, in the circumstances
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2014
