Find a Lawyer

NAVEED AHMAD versus NASEER AHMAD

Section 15 and 21 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1913 suit was filed by the mother of a shopkeeper's minor as her next friend, but the mother of the minor plaintiff never appeared as her own witness. , But instead another person appeared to them. The lawyer, who was unaware of the facts of the case, was sued by the minor's son on the suit, but the seller was sued because all the expenses were incurred by the vendor, the trial court said. I was told that even if the seller did the litigation. The appellate court set aside the trial court's order and order and dismissed the case, which stated that the appellate court had manipulated the shopkeeper for his own benefit, but the appellate court It turns out that the lawsuit filed by the minor was not for his own benefit; it was in the interest of the seller that the accuracy would not be an exercise of the right to a pre-emptor suit, but it could be a fraud. Because there is enough material to prove otherwise the suit was collective. The sale mutation was filed within one year of verification, but the evidence on the record proved that possession of the property filed before the sale mutation verification was substantially granted by the Court of Appeal's decision correctly. And the trial court's plaintiff could not convince the superior. The court will take a different view in the appellate court's decision best law firm from Dargai lawyer