Section 12 (2) alleges fraud and misrepresentation in favor of a former importer / decree holder seeking exemption from the order proof petitioner, who applied to the property as one of the shopkeepers. Claimed to be a partner, challenged. The CPC filed a petition under section 12 (2), accusing the plaintiffs of favoring the plaintiffs to include him as a shopkeeper for the property, despite taking 1/5 percent of the premature property. Was not done Not imposed as a shopkeeper in a pre-emption suit, the lawsuit filed by the premier / decree holder was not only liable for partial pre-arrest, but also in favor of the holder The verdict and decree were illegal, with no jurisdiction. The fraudulent and false statements resulted in certified copies of the sale, mutation, and enclosure in connection with the previously vacated property, attached to the rock by the pre-emptor / decree holder. Owner was not included anywhere, as well as the seller of the four vendors / decisions, if the applicant was charged, then the number of sellers is stated to be five, pre-emptor / There will be no adverse effect against the decree holder's interest. , But relying on the entries in the certified copy of the Sale Deed issued by the Registrar, which included only the names of the four vendors / decision makers, because in their written statement the lawyers / decision makers objected to it. Did not raise the list of applicant vendors
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
