Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Suit for Declaration Amendment Scope The two parties had proposed that the thumbprints be sent to the laboratory on the relevant papers and the decision of the matter was based on the laboratory trial court's report. To be done on In order to invite the parties to these matters, especially when the defendants made specific requests for improvement in the suit property, in both cases, the courts declared the case to be a mistake of law. There was no safe way of delivering judgments and orders from both courts, based on the forensic science laboratory report on thumb impression, without recording the evidence, which was the result of a clear violation of the law. Also, the law applicable to the points involved in this case was illegal, which is not usually a High Court, though it was not implemented. The concurrent finding of the facts recorded by the two courts below was misleading, but when the law was grossly illegal and patent infringement led to serious corruption of justice. The High Court had a legal obligation to correct the error by intervening in an unlawful search that was set aside by the imposed decisions and orders of the two courts below, and after recording the final and contradictory evidence of the case. , Was remanded for a fresh verdict after the trial. n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
