Section 11, 12 (2) and OVII, Rr 10, 11 (d) of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), declaring the hereditary mutation of the section 42 victim, depriving his four daughters, including the plaintiff, in favor of his son. In the present case, his father's claim to participate in the property left by his father in a similar case in the first case, in which the plaintiff was the party of the plaintiff's brother that the case was filed under section 11, CPC. Was prevented, thus, the plaintiff was liable to dismiss the case because under Section 12 (2) of the plaintiff's case, the party applying in advance to the applicants to convert their plaintiff to the application. Yes, the CPC dismissed such requests and again rejected the revision request from the trial court by the Vision Court. Under Section 12 (2) of the trial, the CPC, with the direction of the trial court, to return the trial court's request under section 12 (2), CPC for its presentation. File an order, determine it. In the professional case, the plaintiff's sister's legal claim was established by the appellate court that she was entitled to share in her father's inheritance with the plaintiff, along with her other sisters, in the case passed in favor of the plaintiff's sister. The property as the father's legacy, which included the plaintiff's decree in a lawsuit challenged by all the legal heritage, including the brother, was upheld by the appellate court and revoked by the plaintiff in the High Court. It was not approved that he would appear after the hearing. This decree in the pre-trial case, which sets out the rights of all legal heirs, and the highest
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
