Section 6 516 A Spardi real estate property applicant was accused of stealing buffalo belonging to the plaintiff / defendant, and allegedly sold for the purchase of another buffalo (controversial buffalo) initially. But the Judicial Magistrate granted the plaintiff / defendant the disposition of the disputed buffalo. On the order of the reviewing court, the magistrate briefly inquired into the matter and approved the transfer of the disputed buffalo to the applicant. The review court upheld the order of the petitioner in his constitutional jurisdiction in favor of the High Court. However, the initial order approved by the Judicial Magistrate was restored. , Whereby the plaintiffs / respondents on record in support of the applicant's claim were granted a legally binding buffalo, the Judicial Magistrate granted the applicant the disposition of the disputed buffalo, which was in fact That the reviewing court maintained that the Judicial Magistrate High Court had unlawfully restored the initial order of the Judicial Magistrate, which the reviewing court had laid down, the High Court set aside the findings of fact recorded by both the courts. And provided the plaintiff / defendant with no indication. In this case, any legal weakness was merely given to the defendant / defendant on the statement of the investigating officer that the dispensation of the disputed buffalo had been with the defendant for the past one year / the judgment of the High Court was granted to the defendants. That was why an appeal was allowed. r \ n
