Setting a lawsuit for Articles 6 and 13, which claimed pre-emptive rights regarding vacancy, took place when he learned of the sale of a suit land to a person. So, even then, without wasting time, the demand was made and then the rest of the formal process would be completed; Other matters were then carried out in the procedure prescribed by law, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court rejected the judgment and order passed by the trial court, The court rejected, while rejecting the trial court's order, concentrating its decision on the point that the sale was done through a registered instrument and witnesses acknowledged that all villagers had registered the sale agreement. Knows that the Court of Appeal emphasized that because of all the date of the sale of the rural sales contract I knew, so it is important to speculate that the plaintiff had a notice of the sale transaction, but after a long time, he sent the notice after which the evidence was consistent and the contradiction in the approach of the Tallahassee was first published. It was not found that the idea presented by the appellate court that the village had become known after the other persons, does not mean that the plaintiff had become aware of the sale, the validity of the other persons could not be known. The knowledge of the appellate court's decision and order was not disclosed, was not sustainable in the law, and a request for review was made against the appellate court's decision. And was accepted with prices and the decision was dismissed and the decision was deleted
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
