Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus MUHAMMAD ASHIQ

Failure to file a petition seeking stay within two weeks from the date of sale of the pre-emption case of section 13 (3) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the Punjab Prevention Act, by the Appellate Court and the High Court. Ashdad was admitted to the respondent on 21-9 1993 through a notice of notice, while the change in sale was confirmed on 27 on 1993. The plaintiff did not comply with the requirement of section 13 (3) to make the purchase within two weeks of the knowledge of the sale to the two true witnesses, under the auspices of the Registered Corps, the counter notice of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991 sought It was sold almost four months after I had sent the notice of Asad. Come to his knowledge, the argument by the plaintiff was contradictory to the day when he took two witnesses from the defendant to make the student happy. A witness stated that the plaintiff had 19 plaintiffs just days before registration. A few days before this, the defendant was sent a red notice, which would be about four months from the period of two weeks' awareness under section 13 (3) of the Punjab Hut Dharmi Act, 1991. In the absence of postal facilities, the pre-emptor chose to make a personal plea in the presence of two true witnesses; the appellate court and the high court, thus, correctly found that the student was not within the specified time and His decision did not suffer any kind of weakness. The appeal was denied immigration advocates phone number from Bat Khela lawyer