Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD DIN versus FATCH MUHAMMAD

Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1913 SSC 4: and 8 Notification No. 196 R, dated 28 March 1944 and Notification No. 66273/447 LR III, dated March 2, 1973 for possession of property in pre-owned property. The suit was filed and the adjoining land-owned trial court dismissed the case as per the court's directive due to a reduction in judicial fees which also observed that the notification of immunity from underground land had no effect on pre-arrest. Had not happened The Appellate Court dismissed the case, observing that the court fee was paid within time but on the occasion of the waiver it was held that the vacant land on the occasion of the exemption under notification d 28 2 4 1944 was vacant. Was not The date of the notification was released by the petitioner / plaintiff request from the petitioner in 1973 that the appellate court's decision was made after it withheld the reduction of the court fee when it had the option to reverse the trial partner's search. was not. UST on the issue of whether the land was granted immunity from the dispute and that vendors could not support the decision to dismiss the filing without filing an objection, for one reason or another has not been successful until today. And obviously no order can be approved. In his favor, the Trott Attack Order was trying to change the issue of vacant property ownership of land vents, but in fact endorsing the dismissal order. wanted. us immigration advocates from Kahror Pacca lawyer