In the Lim42 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 2020 Su suit for the plaintiff's statement challenged the modification of the suit land granted in favor of the defendant that the plaintiff's suit had been decided by the trial court and The appellate court affirmed that the trial court's legal status had failed to disclose the plaintiff's decision. How his mother's name came up in jamabandi without the support of any law or any relevant document, the plaintiff failed to prove that the plaintiff's mother was the owner of the suit to a third of the plaintiff's land, The Revenue Officers filed a lawsuit with the Revenue Officers to maintain illegal proceedings stating that the plaintiff was bound to prove his case on the basis of clear irrefutable evidence, but failed to do so. The evidence presented does not clearly prove their position. The courts ignored or misinterpreted important documentary evidence. And when it came to a false conclusion that the plaintiff was present at the time of filing the change of 19 4 the the67ated and the year 1990, it was expressly banned that the High Court set aside the concurrent finding of the lower courts. , And excluded the plaintiff's case. The edit was accepted, accordingly \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
