Prior to Section 13, the performance of the petition filed by the plaintiff Mohit and the students, Prof. Plaintiff, that he learned of the sale of the suit on the occasion of the Tehsildar's confirmation of his conversion to the hospital, where he was present as a lambardar. And it performed the student e. The defendant did not demand the jump in evidence and evidence in the presence of the tehsildar in the public meeting, because the plaintiff mentioned that the meeting was "public gathering" instead of jumping in evidence, so the hospital was not cited. The plaintiff was relieved of his plea raised by the plaintiff, who did not mention the demand for witness testimony, but disclosed his name during the testimony when the defendant admitted during the evidence that his The father, who was a lumberboard, was used to identify the changes before the tehsildar. Such an admission made the plaintiff's presence in the kitchen at the relevant time highly doubtful that the witness did not demand jumping into his statement. Following the notice of the student, by referring the time and place of the plaintiff, to the notice of the sender or witness I was denied the information. The notice stated by the postman was received by the plaintiff's brother and not by the plaintiff himself. The witness of such notice denied knowledge that before the right of the teacher and other witnesses the right to self-determination would cease, if the plaintiff failed to strictly prove the student's performance in accordance with the law Failure to prove the Talbot suit was circumstances r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
