On the application of section 42 law in evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 72 and 85 West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (X67I of 1967), Section 42 suit of detention declaration, the defendant in custody on the arrest of the official record requested It moved 28 kanals even before the tehsildar itself came into the hands of the plaintiff, the two courts formally decided the case in favor of the plaintiff and because of this it was the only document on which this was the only document. It has been claimed that he had aggravated the matter before confirming the change, but the request was not in proper custody. If the petitioner had transferred to Patawari, it should have been in the custody of Patawari, as it was a plaintiff himself. Was in custody. Therefore, the question of the plaintiff's testimony was raised as to whether the application was marked on the date when the trust in a document was not effective, as it was not in the proper custody, therefore, the entire reliance on such a document. It could not be held that both the courts did not conform to the relief law given below by the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff which the defendants admitted in the cross-examination that 58 kanals of land were owned by the accused. After verifying the propaganda, the plaintiff attempted to provide some explanation, but the admission remained there when the plaintiff verified the mutation entries by law and mutation, as well as the journal report, which supported the confirmation of variation, And when giving statements of the defendants' witnesses. Fully proven validity, then the quest filed by both the courts was not sustained under the law on which the jurisdiction of the reviewing jurisdiction concluded.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
