Find a Lawyer

MIAN NAVEED AHMAD versus HAJI MUHAMMAD SHAFI

Defendants objected to the suit for the maintenance of suits section 2 (a), 5, 6 and 13 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991, since the suit land is located in the urban area, so it appreciated the immovable property contained therein. Is excluded from The plaintiffs' contention was that section 2 (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, and not pre-arrest, was that section 2 (a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1991, whereby the pre-emptive rights in the area within the urban area. Has the effect of leaving. Despite being declared invasive for the integration of Islam Switch, it could not be excluded on the ground that the sale of the land in connection with the suit land, which was undoubtedly located within the urban area, took place on 5 5 1992 and the plaintiffs 8 of 1992 filed. However, the Supreme Court's decision to declare section 2 (a) of the Act a pretext for the enmity of Islam was implemented on 31-12 1993, which later had to prove that their right after filing a case against an umpire. Okay fine. Former umpires who occupy three important dates, the date of sale, the date of the lawsuit and the date the order was approved, in this case, the right to pre-emption in relation to the suit land, as well as the date of sale. was not. The trial court rightly rejected the history of the institution of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff best law firm from Shadiwal lawyer