The trial court's hearing of the plaintiff's suit on section 39 suits the trial court's dismissal, saying that the trial court's order was set aside by the appellate court. As the exchange of corruption was a criminal act, it was important that the fraudulent plea be specific and with the necessary details if it was said that the details were missing, the fraudulent claim was defective without the details. Does not help the plaintiff to prove it. Proof When a party finds out about a fraud, someone will try to link every link to prove such fraud, before entering a case, in the present case, without any further details and The evidence was pleaded without the claimant's objection. The change was not correct when the matters were not proved by the parties and if the parties relied only on the mutation, it did not produce the fact that the title or title was eaten or granted when the transaction was fully proved. And on the basis of such transactions, the mutation has been confirmed and confirmed, then surely a right and title was created in favor of the person, in whose favor the variable sale was confirmed. Was not required because the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applied to the urban areas and was not applicable to the rural area, the Special Relief Act of 1877 The plaintiff's suit was not eligible under n 39, and it was not a case of document cancellation, but a declaration case that was to be filed under the relevant provisions of the Special Relief Act, 1877, even if the plaintiff's case was also eligible. Was taken to become the then Department of Revenue
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
