Section 47 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), filed a litigation scope execution petition for the application of the section 42 litigation petition, which filed objection requests that were simultaneously rejected and the defendants dismissed. The order passed in favor of the final sentence was implemented. The request made by the plaintiffs was accepted and the defendant did not challenge the order passed by the execution court, there was no decision in the Civil Procedure Code to challenge the decision and the decree. Enter the objections that were processed through the request, no action pending. The Execution Court When the petition was filed for the second time by the Defendants, the second time the objections filed were rejected by the Executive Court but such order was not suspended and for the third time the objections received the final five months. Were submitted after a longer interval. Appropriately refused to entertain the matter, the defendants' ions had failed to identify any illegal, irregular or legal error in any of the following image decrees by the courts. The plaintiff had fraudulently changed the plaintiff's property in her favor and this act of the defendant forced the plaintiffs to approach the court. From 1991 and onwards, they were dragged into litigation by the defendants, which led to a huge sum of money. The court sued the successful party through a failed party.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014
