Articles 75 and 76 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), sections 42 and 39 for declaration, cancellation of registered power of attorney, sealed deed and alteration entries secondary proof, original cost of copy of the regulation's production document The plaintiff's jurisdiction was that he was the owner of the suit property and the Power of Attorney executed in favor of the defendant was forged while the defendant claimed that he was the clear buyer of the suit. Dismissed that the plaintiff did not. Relief was sought for the cancellation of the second power of attorney mentioned in the written statement. The validity court had the power to provide effective or sub-lethal relief through which the property was not transferred in favor of the plaintiff if she did not ask for prayers for cell death and mutation entries. The parties owned the plaintiff suit and the defendant failed to prove his claim in connection with the purchase. The power of attorney required by the plaintiff in connection with the credible evidence was dubious because there was no record of it. It was said that no evidence was presented about the power of attorney's record to be burned. The evidence was displayed without the court's permission to guide the evidence and could not be considered. Neither was it said that the Power of Attorney has any minor testimony, nor did its official appear in court. There was nothing in the record to suggest that the original authority's attorney was terminated or that the copy of the document was not available with the defendant.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014
