Section 42, 54 and 9 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Article 94 (Article 10 of 1984), Article 113 The trial court for a long period of record of the receipt of revenue was declared a stay order and possession It was stated that the order had been set aside by the appellant. The claim of the defendants' court was that the defendants found a suit for the claimant suit in their favor in violation of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The West Pakistan Land Revenue Act was in place before the 1967 issue, and the defendants could not provide any explanation in regards to the legal impact of the backward witnesses and confirmed that the defendants had received a sale case and a substantial incident. To the extent The certified unwanted witnesses in favor of the defendants also supported the defendants and said the statements of the witnesses were not speeded up by the defendants, the defendants did not challenge the other variable which was the result of the controversial change in the revenue record. I have long been dealing with entries and on the basis of limitations, getting the assumption of the truth, which appellant rightly relied on. The defendant of the court admitted during the interim examination that the defendant was the owner of the suit property, so in the light of such admission the evidence of the law to prove mutation in favor of the defendant was irrelevant under Article 113 of 1984. went. The appellate court order could not be interfered with in which the review was excluded, in the circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
