Sections 135 and 172 of the law (1079), which paid the plaintiff's rent money and his income but stopped doing so, were later dismissed by the trial court, which was dismissed by the appellate court. The defendant claimed that the disputed property was an agricultural land and in the light of section 135 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to refer to the Revenue Office for distribution of his share and the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. Under section 173 of 1967, the civil court had no jurisdiction over it. Judge such cases and the case was not sustained due to lack of further jurisdictional record. The defendant did not prove in his evidence that the disputed property was under cultivation, only the defendant's production of jamboree, In the assumption of fact, it was not a final result that the claim was denied by the claimant through a draft site plan stating the existence of this draft. The plaintiff stated in the disputed property and surrounding shops that the disputed property was located in the urban area, consisting of two valuable shops and eight houses, and the defendant did not contradict that fact, but testified against the plaintiff. One of the plaintiff's general attorneys emphasized in their examination of the existence of shops in the disputed property, but did not raise the question that the property had not become a citizen and it was in the testimony of the plaintiff as an agriculturalist. The Chief of Examinations admitted that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and the chief witnesses were acquitted in connection with being a citizen of a disputed property worth Rs.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
