Section 8 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XXVI, R 9 For the possession of the suit local commission, the suit report was decided by the trial court and the appellate court defendant relied on it, to show ownership. Was a copy of the rightsholder in which the plaintiff was partially shown as the owner of the suit land owned by the landowner when the local commission report, when examined in light of the documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff. It is clearly found to be false because the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the case The plaintiff submitted that the revenue record was against the plaintiff's own version. Yes, it has been said that the local commission raised by the defendants, the courts below the local commission did not attend. Did not issue notice to the defendants and did not follow the directions in relation to the demarcation issued by the Board of Revenue Patwari at the time of inspection of the occasion which was not present on the de Revenue record which was not relied upon The aforementioned local commission stated in its report that the local commission is not credible and the revenue record against the plaintiff is available, no evidence is available to the trial court for the trial decision. The following were based on misinterpretation and non-reading of the evidence. The High Court set aside the orders of the courts below and the dismissal case of the plaintiff was approved, accordingly. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
