The trial court's failure to influence the Tolls after the Case 13 trial was formally ruled by the trial court and the appellate court plaintiff and the seller, they were the original brothers and they lived in the same area. It cannot be believed that the plaintiff remained unaware of the sale transaction, especially when the possession of the suit property was conveyed to the seller, especially when it was thought that he was against the review of the case. The suit is a good buyer of property. In the circumstances of this case, when there was a contradiction in the statement of the informant and other witnesses regarding the formation of pre-pond imprints, all the requirements of the law could not be ruled out. The importer could not be expelled for excessive purchase of a suit property, which in the present case had previously failed to carry out the student torture and solicitation proceedings under the law, both the courts having given invalid judgment on the evidence for misrepresentation of the evidence. After and under the jurisdiction of the revision of the statute, which could not be sustained in the eyes of the law, the joint decision and the joint decisions put aside. URL down
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
