Find a Lawyer

AMIN-UD-DIN versus MST. ZARINA

Section 13 Prior to the failure of the prosecution, the evidence-proof evidence arises from the person who had previously informed the importer about the sale. The trial court ruled in favor of the pre-emptor, but the appellate court ruled that The case was dismissed on the basis that the pre-emptor had. Failure to explain the victim because the pre-emptor did not create the person who told him about the sale offered by the first empire that the fraudulent act was proven and the failure to present the first informant Could not affect the matter. The legality of the pre-emptor In his statement, the pre-emptor did not give a reason for why he was unable to present the witness who told him about the first sale. The pre-emptor made a statement before the High Court. That the first informant was confirming the testimony of the sale case and this was because he was not presented as a witness before the High Court denied his own evidence of such proposition in advance. His case was listed in court in which he did not make such statement. High Court refuses to interfere with appellate court's ruling and ruling list of advocates from Khanqah Sharif lawyer