A. IX, R 13 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Article 164 The request for the separation of the former party decree passed against the official delay, the condolences of the persons with the defendant (government officials) were his representative. The transfer / development took place, therefore, could not be presented to the court on the relevant date. And that valuable public property was involved in this case. The record of validity did not support the transfer / promotion of the defendant's representative, which did not help the plaintiffs' court and the appellate court to exclude the former person on several occasions because of the government's valuable property involvement in the suit. The decree against the defendant was passed, but nevertheless dishonesty and sense of responsibility were not returned to him, but the public official should have acted with more responsibility than the ordinary people before the law was not enacted. Not only was it implemented before, the conduct of the defendants was not equal, but it was also not a rule of Islamic jurisprudence that different courtyards for people belonging to different sections of society Shall not be applied which includes the Government officials. She was also responsible charged. The application itself was rejected in circumstances
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
