Find a Lawyer

FAQIR TAJ versus MST. SHAMSHO

Special Relief Act 1877 Sections 8, 39 and 42 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 18 and Article 2120 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 17 and O11, R2 Law Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 114 of the Suite In the dispute registered in 1945, the surrender process relates to land lying in two districts, namely the M&S mutation adopted in the year 1948 on the basis of such action in relation to the land in District M. But in connection with the land situation, District S was approved in 1983. The defendants have no knowledge of such surrender. In a 1987 lawsuit filed by the claimants in relation to the situation of the claimants in the District MP was ordered in relation to the situation of the district's land in 1992. On 17 June 1992, after 47 years of such proceedings and nine years before the suit trial court, the present case was dismissed, but the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff could be provoked. Decision made. The first case relating to the subject of the current claim shall be equivalent to dismissing / abandoning the claim for non-inclusion in the suit before excluding the entire claim, within six years from the date of receipt due to the current litigation. Can be done, but the same claim is later made 45 years after the confirmation of the deviation, Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, the plaintiff may, to some extent, avoid the impulse of knowledge to avoid the act of Knowledge Act 1908. But if they had no knowledge of it immediately after 1945, they got that knowledge in 1983, when they decided to challenge the issue. I have filed the first lawsuit list of advocates from Chitral lawyer