Sections 30 (2) and 36 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. VII, R 11, the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue during the trial of the plaintiff's rejection of the jurisdiction of the Allotment Civil Court under the cooperative farming scheme Filed for challenge. The Member Board of Revenue set aside the grounds for the plaintiff's execution where it was allotted under the Cooperative Farming Scheme in 1960 under controversial property, both by the trial court and the Court of Appeal under OVII. The plaintiff was rejected. 11, CPC and it is found that the matter is still pending that the District Officer (Revenue) dispute was raised by the Plaintiff that the Member, Board of Revenue was not able to return the matter to the Collector / District Officer Revenue. Refer to the same decision. He should have done it himself after renewing and conducting an inquiry and since the Board of Revenue was terminated due to the member's basic order, the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain. Prior to the Board of Revenue, the plaintiff had joined the proceedings and the invalid order was approved after hearing by the members, the Board of Revenue had also inquired into the Board of Revenue which stated That the plaintiff seized the record room and the cooperative society store and criminal case were registered against it and that the record room of the colony office was also burnt to a member of the ashes, the Board of Revenue found it appropriate The proprietary rights collector (now District Officer Revenue) should record the evidence and decide the matter. The officer who brought up
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
