Articles 30 and 19 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), Article 42 of the Contempt of Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 85, 92 and 95 of the suits, the plaintiffs 'arguments for sale were mutual defendants' argument that the suit was allotted in favor of the plaintiffs. That could happen. Do not meet the terms of the allotment and the contract of sale was signed and the sale and power of attorney registered agreement was executed but the change was canceled by the Assistant Commissioner suit but it was only by the appellate court. Was deleted The authority of Atelier was the Atelier in which the sale agreement was mentioned. Defendants have never challenged these documents through litigation or other proceedings in a forum. The registered documents were deemed to be correct and it was proved by the plaintiffs that there was no response against the said documents. A change in the sale of the suit property was approved in favor of the file claimants and was included in the revenue record. The Stent Commissioner was not able to decide on the sale or power of attorney agreement and this change. Cancel Under section 19 of the Government Lands (Punjab) Colonization Act, 1912, no issue was raised with regard to bar suit and such objection was raised. For the first time such a bar before the High Court was not available on the contract of sale. The terms of the tenancy will expire upon completion of the sale and will be registered in favor of the allotment, by which the owner of the suit lands. But could do no good Defendants could not be pressured by their mistake and the terms of the cancellation of the sale were a
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
