The plaintiff's effect was to dispose of the appeal without deciding the jurisdiction for the Solution Announcement for the Suration Declaration, which was that the appellate court dismissed the appeal without deciding the petition moved by them, which was an unlawful action. ? The appellate court did not decide the miscellaneous application filed by the plaintiff to quash the appeal, but such deficiency will not be excluded from appeal by the appeal to the central appeal. This type of error should appear in any case with the characteristics of the case and the contents of the various application. If it did not have a direct impact on the merits of the case, it would not be taken seriously. The instability of the miscellaneous plea did not bring any prejudice to the plaintiff's case, only such a score did not have to be sent to the appellate court for judgment. When he did not provide details of the sale, the suit land was purchased and the sale was oral and no other person was present with him at the time of sale. The courts below failed to prove his case. Because the plaintiff had not been sued because her case was registered in the name of the plaintiff. The assumption of truth and accuracy was linked to the record of income was such speculation was rejected and it required strong evidence which was not available in the present case. Both the courts correctly appreciated the evidence for any illegality. Interference, misreading or unreading of evidence was not reviewed by the claimant revoked the circumstances
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
