Find a Lawyer

RAZIA BEGUM versus ABDUL AZIZ

Article 13 Convene testimony (10 of 1984), Article 76 demonstrating the pre-exploratory evidence of suits stated that she knew of the sale of the suit land in Diggerwala but she The time is not the same as the time mentioned, the date of notice of the first publications mentioned during the examination was also different. Students' testimony was proved by two witnesses but none of them. Neither was competing against the original notice of the student and instead the photostat copy was presented in evidence without such a private document. According to the defendant, the notice of the student will not be substantiated, according to the law defendant, having brought the original documents and obtaining permission for the secondary evidence, had to prove by presenting his original and photostat copy ? While denying the receipt of the notice, it was the plaintiff / pre-emptor's duty to prove the student's performance, which, in the absence of proof, could not be inferred by the defendant's photostat copy of the student's notice of notice. The reason for not objecting to the fact is that no postal receipt related to the delivery of the notice was presented with the evidence, nor was the notice distributed in the post checked in the absence of this. Such evidence cannot be held that the plaintiff Punjab has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991 Jam was granted, under which the courts could not compel any form of illegal / irregularity for the High Court review jurisdiction, the application was dismissed. immigration advocates from Risalpur lawyer