A. XXIII, R 1 & O VII, R 11 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 8 suit sued the plaintiff for the removal of the suit scope for the possession of immovable property in which the defendants defendant The petition for rejection was moved which was accepted by the trial court. After the appellate court recorded the evidence, the case was remanded for judgment on the merit. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit after withdrawing the previous case in respect of the same land, which was mentioned in the previous suit. The issue was the same in both cases and relief was not allowed in the case. The finding was dismissed directly because the retracting plaintiff must be excluded from the fresh case in relation to the same subject matter, or in this part of the claim the appellate court did not consciously apply the facts of the case. And record the results without it. The order passed by the trial court defining the law applicable in the present case was legal, legal and based on facts and circumstances. The verdicts and decisions of this case were based on false advertisement of reading and evidence without the Appellate Court and it was in any jurisdiction. The appellate court guaranteed the intervention of the High Court in the jurisdiction where it was not authorized, and the order of the trial court was granted. The appellate court was upheld and the plaintiff was dismissed
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
