Clause 42 and Lim 54 of the Limitation Act (IX of 8 1908), Article 2020 Su and suit for exemption, the count of the plaintiff was reversed in the year 7 in cons in But somehow the 3 kanal land was registered in the register. The dispute was registered by the plaintiff in the year 1995 by the revenue authorities maintained by the rights holders. The trial court stayed the case from time to time. But the lower appellate court recorded the same justification record or the evidence of the parties did not indicate that the plaintiff was aware of the wrong entries. In the Revenue Records in 1995 before the year, the documents relied on by the defendant were not displayed nor the question of the defendants signing the document in 1978 was decided on the touchstone of the cross examination. It cannot be said exactly, no. In the interest of the claimants, there was sufficient material on record to indicate that the forerunner had actually signed the document. The plaintiffs occupied four canals of land and remained in possession of the same country. The court did not deny the fact that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs was not barred by the lower appellate court. Neither illegal or material misconduct was neither inaccurate or evidence-reading in the record, and the lower appellate court had properly appreciated the evidence in its original context and was subject to the law. Applied the correct principles by which the High Court refused to interfere with the decision.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
