Sections 4, 21 and 30 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), section 42 demarcation act (IX of 1908), Article 120 pre-emption suit cell-proof thick tune, separation of suit land in favor of two vendors But the first importer allegedly identified a mutation in the name of the seller, the same date was confirmed when the trial court and the lower appellate court jointly affirmed the case. And dismissed the appeal in favor of the former importer. Legitimate changes were made in favor of different vendors who were compared and even paid a fee, then there was no chance of canceling those opportunities and in the same country and the joint sales mutation Such a joint change was made in the day and the date when the consolidation of the taxpayers' staff as well as those who took advantage of the contentious changes with the disputed emperor when both the courts declared that no sale was made through D. Is. The contentious variable could not then be decided in favor of the umpire. The searches of the two courts below were contradictory to the extent that they found that there was no sale by controversial mutation and on the other hand they ruled on the case. Is. The view of both the courts was wrong as the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 were not applicable and the matter was covered under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1913, which was one year for filing in the High Court. Was given a limit of , Under the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Amendment, the cases filed by and against the vendors by both courts
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
