Find a Lawyer

GHULAM FATIMA versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH BOARD OF REVENUE

Plaintiffs' foreclosure lawsuit for section 11 and O II, R2 race judicata, which lost its lawsuit on return of suit land in 1975, did not deny that plaintiff's claim in her fiduciary suit His predecessor was mortgaged in 1900 with a non-Muslim withdrawal. But his claim was that upon transfer of the suit land in the name of the Central Government, his right of redemption was recognized under Sections 13 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, so the mortgage was still low and could be obtained. There is evidence of the plaintiffs. A copy of the case was not presented, but a copy of the judgment passed in 1975 revealed that the plaintiff's predecessor in the previous case believed that the mortgage was extinguished due to shortage of time because it did not. Was. In the present suit, the redemption by the Martgore plant in a fixed period of sixty years was also based on the same mortgage, which, as previously claimed, was a copy of the change in prediction of the rights of the plaintiffs by the defendants. Was prepared and the position of the defendant's document cannot be considered in his second case; The defendant, through the present case, had sued him at the time of the first litigation but chose not to pray for him and deliberately stated that part of his claim was the provisions of O II, R 2, CPC. Has been blocked by. Because the case in both suits was fairly uniform between the parties, and the trial court was capable of hearing the first trial of the defendant's provisions of section 11, the lower courts correctly appealed to the CPC. advocates from Kallur Kot lawyer