Section 13 students, the plaintiff's performance had previously filed a lawsuit with the claim that there was a sale in this case, but he was given the color of the gift and at the same time the plaintiff was dismissed and his The statement was the location and time of the call and the informant's performance. The plaintiff did not have evidence to substantiate the performance of the plaintiffs' evidence through evidence, but failed to confirm the plaintiff's position taken by the plaintiff, but in relation to this information was limited to contemporary Vela. At the right time, when the requirements of section 13 of the KP Pre-Impression Act of 1987 were carried out in compliance with the petition, therefore, the plaint was not complied with and did not disclose the date on which the notice of notice was sent. The deficiency was sufficient that the plaintiff did not challenge the change of gift in the plaintiff with this claim for not naming the plaintiff and was not already vacant. Religion as a sale and can be vacated as a sale after such announcement and not a gift but make no such effort. It was found that the case was faulty, the plaintiff could not only fit such score \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
