The plaintiff claimed to own 27/48 shares for the exposure of A-VII, R 2 and O II, R 2 suite accounts, while the defendants out of the total common property amounted to 21/48 shares. The country moved there until 1979 and 1991, for about 12 12 years, the disputed property containing 7 shops remained in the possession of the defendant who had received the rent of the shops for about 12 12 years, the plaintiff said on his return in 1991. It was alleged that he had taken part in the rent of these shops, but the defendant refused to take care of the case filed by the plaintiff, which was objected to on the basis of the limitation and O II, R 2, CPC. Under the It was held that the plaintiff was obliged to file a lawsuit for distribution and was suing the plaintiff due to legal proceedings for the renewal of the accounts when the defendant rejected his part in 1991 by the defendant and It was not in 1979, when the plaintiff moved abroad, that the suit was completely timely and was not barred by Order II, R2, the CPC banned an action. Applying different suits to different reliefs for one reason; in the present case, the situation was a separate division of property; While Maison's profit / execution of its accounts provides another cause for action for the affected party's defendants. Suit shops were enjoying the occupation and since 1979 Mason has been collecting profits whenever that right was denied, the current cause of action was created. And in the present case, the reason for the recurring reasons was why
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
