Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YAR versus MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR KHAN

Section 12 (2) Punjab Pre-Emission Act (IX of 1991), Sections 6 and 13 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 14 and Article 181 of the Sellers against the fraudulent and misrepresentation notice before the trial. After filing a case for pre-arrest by the trial court, the seller filed an appeal against the trial court's order and order, withdrawing Saeed's appeal from one of the deceased salesman's son. Was a lawyer for the lawyer / other legal heritage, the order to withdraw the appeal can be upheld till the Supreme Court. The defendants filed an application under section 12 (2), the CPC alleging that the deceased vendor's son had withdrawn the appeal and committed fraud. The deceased seller's son, Shoe, who had retracted the appeal as the defendant's lawyer, was able to withdraw the appeal and said the withdrawal could not be considered. In order to commit fraud with the court on the compass of the provisions of section 12 (2), the defendants of the CPC knew of the timely withdrawal order, but nevertheless they applied under section 12 (2). Chose not to file, the CPC was 3 years old and he was pursuing other remedies till the appeal was dismissed from the Supreme Court and he had a 14 year long stay in such acquisition. No period could be deferred for the delay. Whether in good faith or in good faith only, the defendants were not entitled to condolences over the delay of 14 years. Was not based on the facts as well as the legal reasons and was liable to be rejected \ r \ n online advocate from Wan Radha Ram lawyer