Find a Lawyer

MST. JAMILA BEGUM versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATION, D.I. KHAN

Articles 42 and 54 of the suit and declaratory immunity suit were eventually dismissed by the trial court and the appellate court under the defendants' claim that they were the property owner of the suit as a legal representative of the deceased allotment and The government had no hesitation in bringing the defendant / central plaintiff's testimony and documentary evidence to the record as some of the issues raised by the trial court were interconnected and linked to each other, so the trial court's The collective discussion by the source was not illegal because it was objected to. It does not matter when the cases are interconnected and debated separately or jointly by the plaintiff, unless the parties in the legal premises face discrimination, the plaintiff's case goes down. Was properly rejected by the court because the claim was unsatisfactory and was not affirmed by the plaintiff's predecessors and a proper allotment was made in favor of the plaintiffs in the interest of the plaintiffs, Never occupied the plaintiff's land in dispute and his interest in interest was with his mother for a long time and after a long time The plaintiffs file a lawsuit, and without even reaching the authorities constituted under the repealed law, the two courts below reviewed the facts together, adopting better principles of application of evidence against the plaintiffs, Was not disturbed by the High Court in its amending jurisdiction under section 115, CPC. famous lower court advocate from Shankiari lawyer