Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AFZAL versus MANZOOR ELAHI

Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991 Section 13 Drawings of the Second Opinion on Proof of Evidence First Information History Sales Information Proof The importer or his witness did not specify the specific date of knowledge as was mentioned in the plaintiff's but Failing to comply with this and making a concrete statement, the trial court granted the trial court's favor in advance, and the appellate court premier dismissed the lawsuit claiming that he was a very intelligent man. At the same time, the testimony of his witness can be kept in front of him. This should not be interpreted in the same way that the appellate court did in Plaintiff because it had previously known about the sale to Emptor on 1893 1993, but was present as a witness. , The petitioner did not make such statement and instead submitted a relief that when the evidence was recorded it was one year and nine months from the date such statement was not in accordance with the claim and the petitioner in the petition The statements of the witnesses recorded were recorded on 14 11 1994, the appellate court correctly calculated the period and concluded that the date of knowledge was 14 2 1993, not 18 2 1993, e.g. That it was stated in the plaintiff. It was not a matter of demanding a jump (triangle motive), which was presumed under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act of 1991, in the present case, whether the appellant misread the statements made by the promoter or his witness. Read. Another view of the statements made by the witnesses is that the court can easily state the date as an illegal pre-emptor or his witness as such. best law firm from Mustang lawyer