No claim was made or evidence was presented in the trial cases for termination of section 13 before the dismissal of the Islamic Law Scope Trial Court on the basis of pre-arrest. Was denied that the victim was not proven. In the trial court's finding, however, the High Court had ruled in favor of the pre-petitioner in favor of the buyer that the premature notice was filed in connection with the holiday, when The Punjab Pre-Impression Act, 1913. Existence ceased and before the Punjab Pre-Ordinance Ordinance, 1990 was issued, it should be prosecuted in accordance with the classical Islamic law, which included the need for disciplinary action and a demanding signal. That the victim was neither summoned with the required details about the time, date and place, nor was the evidence in accordance with the law proved that any law relating to legal stability in the pre-UK state Didn't exist. Therefore, according to the classical Islamic law of filing a lawsuit, it was to be filed and maintained, that is, during the trial of the Talbot I, Muwibit, the pre-emptive right under the Punjab Pre-Impression Act. Was controversial for. , Was enacted in 1991, but Section 35 (2) of the said Act was declared to be a violation of the orders of the Islamic Civil Code and could be affirmed so that according to classical Islamic law, a pre-arrest order was obtained. can go. And in the present case with regard to the imposed provisions of the Punjab Pre-Emitation Act, 1991
