Sections 5 and 7 Civil Procedure Code (V 1908), O VII, R 1 (e) and O XII, R 1 Convention Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 30 pre-discrimination litigation suits in relation to immovable property In the area around the first and second appeals courts, neither the plea for the admission of counsel for the parties to the existence of such custom suit was made nor proved, the custom of the practice in the area was justified. The evidence was illogical to claim that the right to pre-arrest under Section 7 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1913, neither the plaintiff can demand nor exercise such right. Nor can anyone legally be allowed under section 7 without a special case being presented to the plaintiff. In affirming the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1913, and through its evidence, the plaintiff had claimed premature rights without the presence of any custom in the area, but denied any fact in the written statement. was done. The plaintiff cannot be sued, no one can be legally considered as an admission and the defendant cannot be punished for such denial. The plaintiff in the written statement denied the plaintiff's claim of premature removal, so it was a substantial denial of the defendant's custom. The affidavit was filed with the first appeal that his lawyer's admission to the existence of such a custody in the trial court's decision was not valid, because of the absence of his plea in the trial court. There is no case for such customs
