Find a Lawyer

GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. versus ZIAULLAH

In the light of the material available on record A VII, R 2, O XLI, R 31 and section 115, the trial court challenged the appellate court's defendants revising this decision and injunction under their judgment. The same thing led to the inconvenience of misreading and not reading the evidence and he said that decisions and decisions were mechanically recorded without completely ignoring the requirements of O XLI, R 31, CPC accuracy. The inquiries were filed by the trial court and the appellate court was based on accurate and fair estimates of the certification and it is requested on the basis that the number The rags decisions were final fixing, was clearly inconsistent with Deputy Attorney General about the plaintiff, documentation was not a valid piece of evidence in the absence of evidence against me. And the plaintiff's true and untrue claim cannot be considered where the trial court used the jury. This decision, established by the first appellate court, rarely interferes with the High Court unless discretion is exercised at its discretion unless the High Court exercises jurisdiction under section 115, CPC. , The courts of the lower courts had no limited jurisdiction to interfere with the conclusions. The following was the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or the decision of the case is a violation of the parameters set by the High Courts. family advocate from Samundri lawyer