For the plaintiff in section 42, the suit contends that it purchased the suit land. The change was approved in favor of this, but the defendant, in association with the revenue officials, canceled the mutation. The defendants also filed a claim for the trial court to be stable and the same appellate court rejected the order and remanded the case to the trial court. Record an additional issue and the evidence of the parties The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim after recording the evidence and dismissed the petition filed by the defendant who had filed an appeal which the defendant accepted in favor of the plaintiff. The sale process was the result. This was a fraudulent document and, therefore, the defendant was banned from rejecting the proceedings and the existence of a cell deed was a registered document and the assumption of fact was attached to it, hence the Appellate Court. It was wrong to say that a certified copy of the sale process was not admissible in evidence unless it was proved that the real L ost defendant was himself a patriot, and he himself had access to the record of the revenue. That he may have canceled the change with the Revenue Officers, since the process of selling So this has fueled the reality of the truth. The appellate court erroneously asserted that the defendant had a duty to prove the fact of the sailing deed, without deciding the additional matter which was decided by the trial court's decision of the appellate court. It was forwarded to the appellant.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
