Sections 13 and 12 opposed the pond exemption suit on three grounds to abolish the suit. That is, the plaintiff did not meet the essential requirements of the pool. It was banned at that time. And the plaintiff waived his right of sovereignty. The sale agreement in respect of the suit property was registered on 28 12 2004, while Talb Khosmat was made on the 25 4 2005 suit, in the circumstances it was within the stipulated period and was not banned by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the property was offered to the plaintiff, but he refused to buy the same and in that respect the plaintiff waived his right of ownership, the defendant received the notice in the North West Frontier Province Pre-section. 12. The Impression Act, 1987, in which he failed to do so could not rely on the defendant's general defense of waiver, meeting the essential requirements of the divorce under section 13 of the North West Frontier Province Pre-Impression Act, 1987 Had done, the appellate court rightly said. The appellate court's order cannot be interfered with by the High Court, in cases where there was no arbitrary, arbitrary or utter apathy.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
