Section 13 students' delay in affirming the plaintiff's appeal dismissed by the trial court because the plaintiff is a co-owner of the property and a common source of irrigation, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal. Things were not in accordance with the law, when the plaintiff's witnesses said that when the plaintiff learned of the sale transaction, he performed the Talib Manitabat after 10/15 minutes, another witness said that about five Minutes later, the leaping demand was justified if in any mode provided under section 13, the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991, if the necessary things were not done in accordance with the law, the right of prejudice would be quashed. Both the court and the appellate court misidentified the evidence and if the deposition of the two material witnesses was misinterpreted, the High Court accepted the request. Or \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
