Sections 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 12 (2), 24, 115 and A. XXXII, R7 suit claiming that the plaintiffs are tenants and that entry in the revenue record gives the impression That they are non-occupied tenants. The claim was illegal and a petition for modification of the plaintiff was also filed with the claim against the facts, but the trial court dismissed it during review before the district judge, a settlement was filed in court. In the light of which the revision was dismissed and the case was moved / remanded to the trial court whereby the plaintiffs / applicants challenged the order of settlement through application under section 12 (2), c. The PC dismissed the Additional District Judge for setting aside and reviving the review process. Applicants / applicants filed a civil review claiming that the Additional District Judge could not move the case. Section 24, CPC, which authorized only one district judge to transfer the case to the original jurisdiction and that one of the plaintiffs was a minor, on behalf of which the agreement was O xxxxi, R 7, CPC. After the Additional District Judge's violation was imposed, K was excluded. The revision function had become opioid, so the matter could not be transferred to the original jurisdiction. That is, the respondents failed to present the original Power of Attorney in favor of the person who, before filing an application under Section 12 (2), had never denied the plaintiffs' simple denial of documents without proof. Didn't challenge. Or no strong evidence was guaranteed by law. Applicant
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
