Find a Lawyer

NASAR KHAN versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I, LAKKI MARWAT

Article 199 of the Applicable Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 of the Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), Section 12 (2) and O IX, R 13 of the suit to effect a claim for collusion and fraud. ; That; because he had been in his possession for more than sixty years, he had acquired title to the suit land by prescription, and had to correct the entries in the record of the revenue, in his favor. All the applicants' predictions were ex. The judgment was passed by the trial court in Pan and the case, after about thirty-two years, the petitioners' petitioners filed a petition under Section 12 (2), CPC, so that the trial court granted it on that basis. That they did not issue summons to them. The decree obtained by the plaintiffs' professionals was the result of fraud and fraud and it was stated that along with the petition, the trial court and the appellate court rejected the petitioner and the petitioner filed a constitutional petition. Challenging the concurrent decisions of the courts in which the respondent's advance in the case was claimed. The Fide Trial Court was not misled by any of his proceedings, nor was the decree passed in his favor on the waiver of the fraudulent and fraudulent record and the available documentary evidence on the charges. , Was not set on record if the applicants were enraged by the previous Parliament's order, they should have filed an application under OIX, R13, CPC, but they filed instead. Was. Application under Section 12 (2), CPC, which was not manageable. Because of the summation top civil advocates from Mangla lawyer