Find a Lawyer

SHEHBAZ KHAN versus AHMED KHAN

Article 114 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Exx., R14 and Section 115 Revision Examination, was owned by one of the suit land applicants by Eastland, who provided it with the applicant's father as well as the respondents. Had previously filed the notice itself. The case for which the order was ordered was submitted prematurely, and the respondent withdrew the same land, so the applicant's father was sent to OX, R14 (1). (B). The CPC did not say that neither the sale nor the pre-emption order was included in the revenue record, which in turn stated that the applicant was recorded as the owner. Taking advantage of the illegal entries, the petitioner went on to sell the same land which was confirmed to the respondents / shopkeepers without legal authority. Then another petitioner and the brother of the aforesaid applicant, Wendy's, claimed for themselves that as a good buyer, the trial court ordered the sale to be refunded, while the appellate court filed a petition with their father. The sale was justified to the extent of the applicant's share in the property, which was one. The second applicant, who sought the successful applicant's appeal, claimed that the mere fact that he had confirmed the variance would not have the status of depriving him of his legal rights in the suit land. Variations when the Tehsildar records his orders confirming the change. Although the dispute raised by the second applicant was in accordance with the law resolved, but in the present case, the issue immigration advocates contact from Shahpur Chakar lawyer