The plaintiffs' jurisdiction to ban the Declaration of Attachment in the Arts 100 and 101 Specific Relief Act (of 1877), the Section 42 Certificate, was that they were the owners of the suit property on the pre-emption settlement agreement. Simultaneously in the certified copies of the accuracy document, the same idea was attached to a document that was thirty years old and the notice was dismissed prior to the settlement and the contract title was a thirty year old document but was not a public document. The concept of the document could not be extended to a document that was not free of doubts and was rejected. The age of my document was not to the point of fact. The proper custody of the document and signature should have been established in this way. The contents of the document require proof to prove that the defendants listed was done. The ownership column while the plaintiff was shown as a tenant in the suit property suit was banned under the statute of limitations and the orders of the two courts were not sustainable because of the law and the record's profanity. Was excluded and the decisions and orders of the two courts were set aside, in which the review was accepted in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
