Impact of section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. VII, R11 and Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 28 and 20 (2) of refusing to uphold the principles of the case. It is in the interest of the defendants that the suit property mortgage was placed by a lawyer in advance who had not been released in sixty years and the plaintiff became the owner of the same trial and challenged the case on the basis of the prescription. had gone. The CPC, filed under Section 12 (2) of the Defendants' Trial Court, accepted the said petition and set aside the Decree which was upheld by the High Court, and then one of the Defendants filed the OVII. , R 11, transferred under CPC. Section 28 of the Demarcation Act, 1908, was declared unacceptable to Islam and the plaintiffs had no reason to take action which was eventually accepted, no doubt, Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 After giving up, no case for prescription could proceed before the target's date, ie, 31 199 1991 and the same could be disposed of at the beginning of the current lawsuit after the target date. Prohibited by the plaintiff When the claim of the applicant was withheld by the law, it is only necessary to obtain a remand and give the parties the opportunity to present evidence. It would be a waste of time and time and using the jurisdiction under O. VII, the R 11 CPC court had to look at the alleged grounds in the plaintiff and if it came to the conclusion that all of the plaintiff's case was accepted in the case. Even if proved and proven, the plaintiff will not be entitled to relief in any way. Will be rejected
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
