Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Conduct (10 of 1984), Arts 132 and 133 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O III, RR 1 and 2 Pre-Impression Suit Inquiry, Demand Demand Reporting Performance and Notice The witness testifies to the prosecution's appointment of a lawyer appointed by the court to examine such lawyer after facing cross-examination examination by the opposing party. There was nothing on the record for the umpire's absence due to his illness or to moving out of the country or serving in remote areas. The statement of such informant, unless disputed by the pre-emptor, cannot be considered for proof of propaganda efficiency, without any compelling reason why there was no evidence of the Emperor's advance. Such talks raised doubts about the credibility of the performance, but as a result it faced negative concerns and failed to blindly rely on his lawyer's statement, which the Emperor failed to prove. It was reported that the suit was dismissed under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
