Section 42 West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Sections 45 Kanoon Shahadat (10 of 1984), Articles 117 and 120 suits, the presence of facts by the courts below the plaintiff for the recording of the record in the writ of right Claims to prove it. The plaintiff and lower appellate court, respectively, dismissed the nominated case and appeal in the record of revenue in the name of the plaintiff and the appellate court, and brought nothing on record as to how the plaintiff's verification case was allotted to his predecessor. Could The defendant's interest but such error did not benefit the plaintiff until he had proved his case on the strength of his own evidence when it was not the plaintiff's case that the suit property was in fact a non-Muslim right I was entered incorrectly. And as a result was transferred to the central government, the defendants rightfully claimed ownership of the area's Suite Property Revenue Officer, appearing as witnesses. The plaintiff also denied the plaintiff's status as the proprietor of the plaintiff's property, affirming that he had made a claim in this case, but also affirmed that according to the income tax, the defendant Alihan was the owner of the suit land, the High Court refused to interfere with the acquittal. The fact is that it has been filed by the courts as no one was found to have misread or misread evidence, nor was there any jurisdictional error which was excluded from review.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
