Failure to mention the time and date of the lawsuit for section 13 and 31 (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), section 5, 29 (2) (b) for pre-emption, time from the knowledge of the pre-emptor The scope of the performance of the calculation was ambiguous on the plaintiff's contention, because the only reference to this property was without explicitly disclosing the property, or to the High Court deficit, it was held that the office The (applicant) mentioned the place of performance regarding victimization, but another important part, such as the Tal publication, was never mentioned at all, and its date, time and place are not known. Yat did not have to be mentioned and if any of them were missing, the case was responsible for the dismissal of the pretermter. The logic behind it was that the principle was that the pre-empire should come up with clear facts in its case, So that he can guide his evidence accordingly and not improve his case during the trial, nor leave. From Wendy's (defendant) claimed that after buying the suit property, he had spent a large sum of money building it, while the former importer said in his investigation that the commissioner was appointed under the trial case. After the sale, the seller has not raised any construction. The market value of the shopkeeper's house, which stated that cement is being constructed in a 4-5 kanal area, pre-emptor objected to the commissioner's report, objecting only to estimating market value, but at that age Or did not dispute the location of the compulsion, which meant that the construction was taken up on the suit property with approval and the construction took days or months.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
