{"issue_text":"Whether applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property on 1 August 2022","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant's claim of undisturbed possession; respondents' denial"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent deprived applicant of possession forcibly or wrongfully against consent","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Allegation of broken locks and chased guard; respondents' denial"}
{"issue_text":"Whether applicant discharged the onus of proving the requirements for spoliation","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Evidence presented by both parties"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant failed to prove peaceful and undisturbed possession of shop 5 on 1 August 2022 or that respondents forcibly deprived them of possession, as required for a spoliation order.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases