In plaintiffs' provisions of Articles 6 and 13 of the pre-discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff sued for pre-emption possession by claiming that he had a pre-emptive right of acquittal against the defendants and that he was required by law. The students have performed and the defendants have sued and filed a written statement. The trial court ruled on the plaintiff's case, while the appellate court overturned the trial court's ruling and ruling, and dismissed the trial on the plaintiff's legal status, which revealed that the plaintiff was sued on May 21, 1999. At 8pm, 8 minutes of controversial land sales were discovered. Contrary to what one of the plaintiff's witnesses had dismissed during the inspection by the Chief that the plaintiff had "tortured the student" on the evening of 1999 \ 1999, the plaintiff admitted during a cross examination. What happened when he found out about the sale of the disputed land. It was sold and the same day / night the defendants took up the construction on the disputed land The lawyer for the plaintiff admitted that the notice of notice of the student's notice was not formally shown during the evidence. failed to perform, as well as the \ "e-mail publication \ review request" rejected by the High Court \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
