Sections 42 and 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XVI, R 14 Impact on the arrest of judicial witnesses Because the plaintiff is the widow of the deceased, she filed a declaration claiming to be entitled to her share of the property. What. Fourth, in 1983, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's claim during the trial, and stated that the plaintiff was entitled to receive 16 kanal of land from the property in dispute over the new suit and the rest of the case. The trial court filed a special performance claim in plaintiff's dismissal in 1991, based on a statement of agreement made with the defendants that had been previously dismissed. The petition filed by the plaintiff in the year 1995 was also dismissed in 1996 by the plaintiff in the judgment of accuracy and the order passed by the trial court in 1983 was based on the merits. The e-number is not the only clear explanation, however, according to the substance, the suit was compromised to the extent of 16 kanals, ie, 1/4 of the widow's inheritance from the widow's estate through her deceased husband meter, and XVI, R 14, Seeking relevant Revenue Officer as a court witness using powers under CPC, which, after failing to act, deprives the woman of her right to dispute land for the past 35 years. The trial court re-sent the case to the trial court in 1983 and adjudicated on the specific issue of the deceased's land measles number, and directed the trial court to appoint an Executive District Officer (Revenue) as a judicial witness. Accused, slaughtered and measles of controversial land by slain HC
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
