LAL DIN THROUGH SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY versus SYED SABIR HUSSAIN SHAH
Section 13 Pre-Rule Right Enforcement Students Disagree In Statements of Evidence Testimony The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court denied the discriminatory testimony, which was denied and said It was learned that the sale of the suit property on the same day 4/5 pm and informed the Pratt Importer about the sale of the suit property in the presence of other discrimination. During the course of the investigation, the witness of the importer admitted. Before the sale of the suit land, everyone was informed that anyone interested in purchasing the land They can purchase the same. ; Therefore, the appropriate notice required under the law was presented to the residents of the area in which the pre-emptor pre-emptor's witness stated that evening / evening after 7:30 pm and another witness of the pre-emptor testified in his examination. That the chief pre-emptor was told about the sale of the suit suit at five o'clock in the evening No witnesses were consistent on this matter and all the emperor's witnesses had contradictions in the statement. Had arrived File a lawsuit because the vendor had already announced the sale of the land that was known to the area's residents. The High Court did not find any jurisdiction in the lower appellate court's decision, according to the High Court. The interference guarantee was excluded in circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
