Sections 13 and 5 of the televised dissertation, before the plaintiff's effect, indicated that the pre-emptor was sitting in the courtyard and 2/3 minutes after the consultation. It announced the filing of a lawsuit for reinforcement, and the publication meant jumping demand, and if the same was done after consultation and consideration. It cannot be understood that the victim counseling will point to the advantages of filing a lawsuit for pre-emption, which has negated the spirit of the petitioner's contract as it was under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-Impression Act 1991. The explanation is explained in Number 1. Once a person has consulted or pondered over, he cannot say that he made a bountiful demand, which was the essence of the first motive reasoning that student credibility declared immediately within a reasonable time. And 2/3 minutes should not be wasted on consultation, there was no vacancy in the power of the person who was entitled to the property or wanted to avoid loss in the sense of section 6 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991. He did not consult before making a decision but immediately made it his law. Intention to file lawsuit, clear review dismissed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
