In Section 13 and 31 students, the date and year of filing a petition in the performance of the requisition plaintiff was not specified where a fact was required to be proved by oral evidence, it must be direct and direct evidence in the main source foundation. On the basis of the evidence of conciliation of the case was the person who had not already stated or explained the ex-emperor's name, date, month and year in his examination. His statement could not be considered as credible and acceptable to the witnesses, it was not that the sales department E entry to officer did not follow the requirements of Section 31 of the Punjab Pre aymysn Act 1991 but did not consider personal notes. There was no evidence to be issued by the Registry Authority under the requirement of public notice in connection with the registration of the sales dead plaintiff and it will be deemed that the registration of the sale deed within two weeks from the issuance of the public notice to HE. The plaintiff was aware that the notice was sent to the Club e Publication dated 11/11 2001 while the sale deed was registered on 29th 2001. The Plaintiffs for Sale did not comply with the requirements of Section 13 (1) of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991 and after the prescribed period the plaintiff failed to make the students in accordance with the law and the rights, sent the notice to the students. Previously unavailable for revision was deleted \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
