Sections 11, O II, R 2 and O XVII, R 3 in the interest of constructive race justice parties in which they did not include agricultural property which was the subject of the present case. And the applicants relinquished their rights to the extent of the said agricultural property under Section 11 and O II, R 2, CPC and could not infringe on the present claim raised by the applicants that the judgment of the previous case was merit. And was rejected under OXVII, R3, CPC, and it was stated that the suit parties had demanded the distribution of residential property on the basis of family settlement, but in the present case the applicants did not. Challenged the registration of a property inheritance change in the tax records when the first case was filed, in the interest of the applicants Jesse Rohr was not a commercial landowner for the purpose of any other transaction, and he became the owner of the law and unless the taxation registrations were corrected, he would not be able to sell the agricultural land to the former. Was unable to make a case for the case. Earlier the case was completely different. The open court erroneously stated that the principle of race jostata applied. In case of any residential property dispute, the jurisdiction was entrusted to the civil court, whereas in the case of agricultural land the parties approached the Revenue Courts / authorities, and there was no basis for dismissal of the claim.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
