The Civil Civil Code of Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Title I IX, R 2, determined that the defendant's limitation was that he was the absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of the action to be executed in his favor by the trial court. Was dismissed, but the lower appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff that the questions raised by the defendant were that the sale was a result of fraud and could be declared separately as such. The suit was executed after the death of the landlord. 5 1 1981 and the sale agreement was executed on 7 1 1981, therefore, it was a fake and fabricated document and the trial court rightly rejected the plaintiff's case, before, the plaintiff 19 2 The lawsuit was filed in 1984, which was dismissed. Under O IX on 19 3 1984, the R2CPC waited until 23 198 1986 and then re-sued after more than 2 years and more than 9 months, which later became considered by the lower appellate court. Made a mistake, showing error. As an eel, the court ignored the undisputed documentary evidence which was not guaranteed under the judgment of the law and the order passed by the lower appellate court was set aside and approved by the trial court and Accordingly it was allowed to be revised.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
