Find a Lawyer

ABDUL SATTAR versus EHSAN ULLAH

Section 17 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 148 Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Section 42 Mortgage Pledges were executed in the 1912 suit, which declared that the claim for restoration of ownership due to prescription. A request for was granted and this order was enforced while it was being implemented. There was no amendment to the plaintiff to challenge the order dismissing the suit, but the decision was made in the appeal. The question was whether the West Pakistan redemption and restoration of mortgaged land, the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, 1964 Under 17, the jurisdiction of the civil court was withheld? The property was approved by the Assistant Commissioner for restoration, although the former class, too, should have been challenged by the plaintiffs under the law, when it came to their notice, although it was during the development of this suit, But it was not the dot-order that was challenged in the same suit even by the proper modification of the case when, after the order was enforced, the civil court, without a ruling, acknowledged that the property was redeemed in 1943. Therefore, there is no question of the right of prescription as it is a clear case of jurisdiction over the present case. The decree was set aside and the trial court dismissed the High Court. registration advocate from Sohawa District Daska lawyer