Prevention of unlawful occupation of section & property property The complainant's claim that he owns the articles flat, the trial court dismissed the claim that the complainant did not have possession of the flat in dispute. And that his claim did not fall within the scope of the Unlawful Dispossession Act, 2005, the comprehensive report presented in section H related to it showed that the complainant was neither in possession of the articles' flat, nor She was the owner of the complainant because she has been claiming ownership as the buyer. The lease was not executed in favor of thematic flat in 1983, nor was such a document produced by it. He admitted that he had never been in physical possession of the flat and thus failed to produce any evidence or documentary evidence to establish his ownership on the same essential requirement for seeking the provisions of the Unlawful Settlement Act 2005 Was because the complainant was also missing in this matter. The trial court-approved flat impeachment order did not demand interference because the complainant failed to identify any irregularities and weaknesses under the complaint, but an anonymous order was upheld.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
