Section 13, 31 and 32 pre-discrimination suit limitation notice tolls, Defendant's scope of performance was that the Registrar did not give notice of the sale of the suit land and the limitation period for filing a lawsuit was first known to the umpires. Will be calculated from the date. However, the defendants claimed that the trial was time-bound and the postman was not examined for the purpose that resulted in the simultaneous injunction of the IQ Ashdad suit. 6 2 In 2002, the plaintiffs by registration had purchased the suit land on which this change was confirmed on 16 12 2003 and the case was. The Registrar, filed on 31 31 2004, did not comply with section 32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-Impression Act 1987 but it could not change the explicit and mandatory provisions of Section 31 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-Impression Act 1987, Was provided. In each case, the pre-emption section of section 31 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa pre-emption Act of 1987 was not extended to any extent if the Registrar or Revenue E-Officer failed to give such notice. Sections 31 and 32 should both be freely read with nature and passion, Section 31 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-Emission Act 1987 mandatory. Whereas section 32 was a directory in nature, no punitive results were presented in the absence of such action. The provisions of the law should be treated as such and should be interpreted as adding another clause to the same law. It will sink like this. The whole law should be made up of well-formed, integrated and actionable law. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
