Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus ABDUL GHAFOOR

The Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1913 Section 15 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VIII, RR 3, 4 & 5 Preparation Suit Cell, which was the subject of this suit, was held on 5 3 1973, while the sale agreement was signed on it. Stressed. Services by the appellant, who claimed to be the owner of the property, were filed through an unregistered document on 12 197 1973, no mention of such document was made by the appellant through it. I did not make a written statement in this case. Where they denied the existence of greater autonomy in favor of the respondents (pre-emptor), this was a clear violation by the appellant (seller) of the OC VI, II, 4 and 5, CPC. Which led to his special refusal. In fact, each of the allegations, which he did not acknowledge and denied, did not rule out a dismissal suit, which was contracted by appellant (Vendor) on 30 11 1981. Declaration of Trial and Consent Approved in favor of the appellant There was no attempt made by the appellant (vendor) under 12 12 1981 to obtain approval for the change in his favor before the approval of the said decree, It was held that the courts, pending, have truly found that the appellant failed to establish. That he was the owner of the estate at that time online advocate from Wana lawyer