Arts 44 and 120 and Section 3 Special Relief Act (of 1877), Section 42 suit The plaintiff's contention to test the mutation during a minority period was that it was trivial at the time of the mutation endorsement and was also responsible for the suit. It was decided to leave together. The plaintiff's accusation was raised on 1 1 1989 and he was obliged to file a case within three years of attaining the age of majority, ie for 18 years the suit 4 should have been filed in 1992 or earlier but the same filed. was done. With the delay of 13 years 8 months 9 days, the following two courts did not record the correct findings on the limitation case: The suit of the plaintiff was withheld over time and on the same limitation issue it should be dismissed. The latest cause of action for wrongful registration would be for anyone in Jamabandi who was the owner of the property because the owner is the owner of the defendant suit property and the trial court is bound to decide the first limitation matter and if the court is present So that was to help the prosecution's claim record evidence to qualify the same decision. Was not illegal and that the courts were not sustainable for the Supreme Court, which had jurisdiction reforming the law. The error on the part of the courts and the orders underneath both the courts were set aside and the case dismissed.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
