Article 13 Contempt testimony (10 of 1984), Article 117 TOLFs, showing the burden of proof of the plaintiff was denied at the time and place of the request of the plaintiff by the uneducated village impact plaintiff but he was summoned to the deposed plaintiff. Failed to mention the date of e-convention. All details related to the location, time and date of the Pool Mashhad, and even the smallest details except its history, except the history of the parties, would have been of no benefit if the parties were affected by their trust and confidence. What evidence is not confirmed by the evidence presented. The plaintiff cannot claim to be wrongly benefited from being an "illiterate villager" because there are no legal provisions for the treatment of the villagers in various cases from the citizens belonging to the citizenry because the plaintiff is a litigant. 117 could not exclude the burden of proof. Law martyrdom, 1984 and decree of lower courts were set aside in circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
