Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SADIQ versus SHAHID PARVAIZ

Sections 5, 8 and 9 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991 (v. 1908), section 12 (2), two cases for pre-arrest in connection with the sale were canceled on the basis of the statement submitted on 1993. 1991 had gone. The seller, while the respondents filed a lawsuit against the shopkeeper in connection with the same sale in 1991, which disclosed the facts of the order in favor of the applicant in a written statement. The respondents then petitioned the applicant in his case. Enforced as a defendant, the trial court held that both the applicant and the defendant were equally entitled. Earlier, the plaintiff sued the plaintiff and the defendants as collective and ineffective in favor of the applicants, stating that the applicant was ineffective in favor of the applicants that the order was merely in his favor. Section 12 (2), may be challenged by filing an application under CPC. In the present case, the applicants' legitimate rights suit was pending, when the defendant filed 2-4 1991, the decision of the joint hearing and both such cases, if necessary, were considered by the tester as the defendant. Information about filing a lawsuit through, will still not affect the rights of the litigants obtained through the litigation, as the defendants collectively obtained the lawsuit. , Who, upon finding out his intention of premature sale, promptly compromised with the applicant and accepted his case. Such collective order cannot defeat the rights of the Registrar, which cannot be separately challenged under Section 12 (2). property advocates from Sohawa District Daska lawyer