Regarding the premature discrimination of section 13 (1), the plaintiff's performance in the case was that the pre-emptor found out about the sale of his house on 28th 2002, at 9-10 am \ S through He went on to state that he found out about the sale of his bid to Time S through, without giving his time and person, which is a statement from the informant sitting with him that he had not been given any date, time. And told of the place that he notified the pre-importer about the sale; and that he learned of the sale of the patwari under Section 13 (1) of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991, Demands should be made in the presence of a group of individuals, not as a single person, as one would not. Such evidence and claim that the meeting, the meeting or the composition of the meeting shows that no one was present with the bridegroom, but that he was alone when he was told about the sale, evidence suggests. The pre-emptor, informant and vendor were real brothers. , Cannot be convinced that the pre-emptor and informant were not aware of the suit sale that the pre-emptor had failed to prove the requirement of s 13 (1) of the Punjab Pre-Impression Act, 1991.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
