Under the previous allegations in the Suit 6 and 13 suit, the plaintiff alleged that he met with the defendant in the suit property and expressed that he intends to exercise his or her rights if the three students under section 13 were acquitted. If not performed, the right to pre-literacy will be waived. The Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991, termed any delay in the plea bargain as "good demand", even though the knowledge of the sale was even more deadly, the possession of the property was immediately handed over to the respondent through a registered sale deed. Was made in which this notice was made. A large number of the plaintiffs were residents of the same village where the suit property was located, despite the knowledge of the sale, the plaintiff did not perform the interpreter which was later found to be inappropriate or the defendant was on trial or There was no objection to the visibility of the passport photo copy. Appeals such objections cannot be raised at a later stage, especially at the stage of revision where copies of the plaintiff's passport invalidate the claim of the plaintiff that he met with the defendant to express his desire to buy the property. This is because such copies show that the defendant was not in Pakistan at the relevant time the advertisement board for sale of this property was kept open on the property but the plaintiff did not take any effort to buy the property cross-examination with the plaintiff. I was not asked a single question when asked to understand the witness's positive claim for board display If such a claim has not been contested / contested in the internal examinations then it has been admitted
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
