Section 4 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XVIII, R1 Pre-Impression Suite The deceased plaintiff filed a claim on 4 3 1969 claiming that the plaintiff was the joint owner of the plaintiff and that the defendant did not die on 11 11 1971 After the remand of the case by the appellate court remanded to the deceased plaintiff as his own witness, without recording the plaintiff's legal heritage statements, stating that his deceased father had a superior right to pre-arrest, upon his death. After the plaintiff's legal heritage was partitioned, he was obliged to prove his father's right to self-determination, which was based on the plaintiff's legal heritage statements. Well that is the right to receive higher pre stability, the legal statements such statements will not prove to be the right way. The heirs in the suit cannot be read in evidence of affirmation. The plaintiff's legal heir in his statement confessed that the son of the deceased was the owner of the suit estate, the plaintiff's legal heirs failed to prove that the e-rule was available to the deceased plaintiff at the time of filing the suit. Was, in the circumstances dismissed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
