Find a Lawyer

GHULAM AHMED versus ALI ASGHAR

Claiming evidence for section 13 & pre 13 plaintiffs claiming that they knew of the sale of the suit land when there was no evidence from the plaintiff / vendor the day after confirming its conversion. It was not held that the plaintiff had an effect on the sale before the date as alleged by the plaintiff was aware that the plaintiff claimed that it was correct and that the plaintiff immediately relinquished the victim. had been made, but due to some change in the notice of T'Allah Ashdad, it was doubtful and its reality was shaken and said. That the notice was not confirmed by the two witnesses as provided under Section 13 (3) of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991, there was nothing to indicate that the fact was substantiated. I was created to teach students. Under the following "circumstances", the facts of the property evidence were rightly rejected and the findings were unanimous. In the absence of any misrepresentation and non-reading of the records and illegal or material irregularities in the decisions made by the courts below, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of its jurisdiction. top advocate from Kalam lawyer