Section 13 Students, Requirements The plaintiff's performance did not mention the time and place for the performance of the plaintiff in the plaintiff for the performance of the plaintiff in which the victim was mentioned and as a fixed time. Could not interpret. The plaintiff was aware of the controversial change on 27 2 1999 but after one month of refusal of sale, he executed the dispute on 27 3 1999, in which case, the deferred performance was abandoned and his key performance was not. Was equal to At the relevant time, if the plaintiff's case was liable to be dismissed, then the notice of dismissal notice was not proved if the plaintiff did not perform properly in this mode and manner of compilation. Neither the postman nor the teachers were presented to the court in which the minor witnesses of the notice of the student did not confirm it, but simply kept their signature, which was not a critique, saying that the rule of law was necessary. The contents of the notice of the student should be ascertained by affixing the thumb impression or signing the same to the plaintiff. Do hz should not act as witnesses to prove vendors delivering notice. The postman was to be presented before the court and in case of failure to offer, he was justified in dismissing the case and the evidence of the plaintiff was inconsistent with both the courts below. Failed to interpret the evidence on the existing documents. Correct view and error review of the suit was accepted and the decisions and orders of the courts were set aside and
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
