O XXXII, Rr 1, 2, 3 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 Trial of Limitation for Declaration Against Minority The main attack by defendant's lawyer was that some of the defendants were minor and the courts. No sponsor ad was specified by. No application was filed under O XXXII, all the minors who were not transferred to the CPC were prosecuted by their guardians, the minor defendants were prosecuted by their mothers, while another defendant (minor) ) Was sued by his father. There was no prejudice against such minors as they were prosecuted by their mother or father, who had no interest in the minors, unless the formal order of the court appointed the guardian of the minor advertisement. Nor was there any prejudice. When requested or shown, it will only be a formality that the guardian is not designated as an advertisement, which does not matter to the heritage, no barrier to claiming inheritance Maybe, especially when the plaintiff was parental, the woman when there was no evidence of the plaintiff's specific termination from the suit property, which was the legal heir of the deceased, the property would remain joint ownership and the possession of a co-owner Will be owned by all persons. In the absence of any court error, misrepresentation or misreading of the evidence by the courts below, the request for review against contemporaneous decisions and orders has been dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
