O VI, R 17 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 Improving the Declaration of Decision The defendant failed to mention the document that made him the owner of the suit land. He made his case on the basis of unregistered proceedings, but upon cross-examination revealed that he had purchased the suit from another person who had purchased the property from the plaintiff for improvement if it was actually settled in the case. Which means Maxim Second Son and Probata. Before a party was allowed to prove this fact, it had to be charged, the facts of the case were applied, the defendant did not take the plaintiff's or present review in favor of it, he was the same. May be. The review will not be taken during arguments, nor any scripture, execution or extraordinary testimony nor other work has been presented, nor has it been proved that the claimant was obliged to prove the contract of sale. The plaintiff's argument against the High Court will be dismissed after not presenting the best available evidence. Unless the competent jurisdiction can interfere with the court's finding of facts and law unless such conclusions fall under the legal jurisdiction, the illegal or material misconduct review is hereby dismissed.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
