Find a Lawyer

AZMATULLAH THROUGH L.RS. versus MST. HAMEEDA BIBI AND OTHERS

Section 13 (3) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the pre-emption suit the plaintiff claimed prematurely on the basis of Shafi Jar and the Shafi Khalat Plain showed that upon the sale was discovered. He immediately revealed. In the presence of two witnesses in the village assembly, he intends to vacate the suit land in the assembly, claiming that the sale was kept secret and disclosed to the plaintiff about three months after the fact was established. And that was not denied. i On the very next day after the testimony confirmed by the two witnesses, the witnesses have clearly stated that the material ff high, on the basis of the adjoining boundary line, joint right of passage and joint right. The High Court had found the right to irrigation as per the law that both the students were made well. The plaintiff could not have been sufficient only on the basis that other details of the time and place and names of witnesses, etc., were not specifically mentioned in the plaintiff's contradiction. The student was allegedly complying with the provisions of Section 13 (3), Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991 and the pre-emptor could not be considered fit on the ground. That the notice was not certified to the shopkeeper whose name was not verified by the two true witnesses whose names were disclosed in the notice in which the judgment was based on the correct and proper reasons of the High Court. The decision was not entirely in line with the law. Reading material evidence or misinterpretation of facts and law was identified famous supreme court advocate from Kotla Pathan lawyer