GHULAM MUHAMMAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS versus ABDUL REHMAN
Articles 8 and 39 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art 91 and 120 of the suit and the trial for dismissal of the sale were executed on the basis of the removal of a fraudulent authority of attorney when the court found the plaintiff to be the owner. Despite being banned, the ban was imposed. As it never exercised the authority of an attorney, the subsequent sale was void. Void. When the act / device is deemed invalid, Article 91 or 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 will not be applied. He was entitled to the plaintiff. Due to limitations, the seizure order and the case could not be dismissed, the High Court accepted the review request, and the court rejected the decision.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
