Referring to the different mutation numbers in the suit for pre-emption on section 5 and 31 suit ownership and suit, the range of pre-emption suits described in the suit was different from the scope mutation number, which was barred by the trial court suit. Rejected on oath, both variations involve different parties, considering territory and sales. The pre-importer (applicant) was in possession of the suit property and the change of possession was not proved in favor of the seller (defendant) before the date of the pre-discrimination claim or the date of confirmation of the registered sale deed or the unregistered process. Due to the fact that when the physical possession was changed the pre-emption lawsuit was not started on the date of the change or sale entry presented in the Daily Magazine, within 120 days after receiving knowledge of the change. Therefore, the mutation was unnecessary for the purpose of entry date e As no sale was completed, only the sale On the basis of the change of registration, the two courts did not verify the evidence in its original context, a review application was allowed and the decisions and orders of both the courts were set aside and the case was remanded. ? Trial court for trial de novo and judgment according to law
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
