Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, and this decision was upheld in an appeal. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, and their petition was allowed, leading to the remand of the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration after framing all relevant issues. The trial court again dismissed the suit, and this decision was also upheld in an appeal, prompting the present revision petition.During the proceedings, the petitioners claimed that the findings of both lower courts on specific issues were illegal and unsupported by facts. They alleged that respondents No.1 & 2 failed to prove the validity of the relevant mutations and that the mutations were a result of fraud and forgery. The petitioners cited previous case law to support their contentions.The respondents, on the other hand, defended the judgments and decrees, asserting that the suit was time-barred and that the petitioners had not sought possession of the property in question in their claim. They argued that the mutations were valid and had been in place for many years, and that no challenge had been raised by the petitioners' predecessors.After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the court dismissed the revision petition. The court found that the respondents were in possession of the land for a significant period, and the long-standing entries in the revenue record carried a presumption of correctness. The court also noted that the mutation in favor of respondents No.1 & 2 was not challenged by the donor or the mother of the petitioners during their lifetimes. Therefore, the court concluded that the suit was time-barred, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld.In summary, the Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the judgments and decrees of the lower courts. The court found that the suit was time-barred, and the petitioners' allegations of fraud and forgery were not substantiated by sufficient evidence.

Summary: Since the respondent/defendant had not filed any application for leave to defend, the learned Additional District Judge was required to decree the suit as provided in Rule 2(2) ibid. In our view, in such eventuality, it was not even necessary for the appellant/plaintiff to give exparte evidence.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.