Find a Lawyer

KHUDA BAKHSH versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

The trial court dismissed the case for the preparation of additional evidence on the basis of A. XXXVII, Rr 2, 3 and O XLI, R 27 Pro Note and the two parties presented their own evidence. After the defendant filed for permission to submit, the three photographs of the parties, in additional evidence, confirm that the photos indicate that the defendant received the trial money, the trial court rejected the request. The plaintiff claimed that the photographs attempted to present the public documents in additional evidence presented additional evidence in the interests of It can be argued that the plaintiffs of justice did not say that the photographs in their petitions were not mentioned in the list of dependencies nor gave the failed party the opportunity to fill in the weaker section of the case. Should the plaintiff's request say that the photograph could not be produced because the theft, cannot be believed, if it were lost, then the plaintiff could, at least, be mentioned and relying on the list of dependents. And negative ones can get fresh pictures. The claimant could not show that the images contained were not part of the public record. It may be considered private photos as part of a public record request filed by the plaintiff for the preparation of additional evidence, the trial court dismissed in the circumstances. registration advocate from Kohat lawyer