FAIZ MUHAMMAD versus WIDOW OF LATE SYED ABDUL SATTAR SHAH
West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1967 S: 53 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The process of limiting the appellant's trial without notice to the appellants was primarily a title and possession. Revenue authorities had taken a wrong view in the matter of correcting the record and in dealing with the complaints of the parties concerned, which caused the appeals to be changed without notice to the civil court in their absence. Limitations cannot be imposed with regard to the operation of, thus being misinterpreted. And the Commissioner's Appellate Order does not apply to a limitation with respect to a title case that has no value other than financial purposes, the question of title, occupancy and settlement limitation. The factual aspect was to be examined only after a proper and complete trial, and after that the decision on the limitation question was confined to the High Court by the High Court in order to correct the proceedings of the registrar. Laid down and considered the case for admission in a particular year beyond six years. Such registration was timed to prevent the High Court ruler from going wrong and the Board of Revenue was restored.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
