Article 59 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), A XLI, R 23 Plaintiffs (Defendants) are accused of executing a contract to sell a female by a thumb impression to the fingerprint specialist Failure to send Comparative Plaintiffs based on the alleged execution of a contract for sale by Phoenician women, filed a statement of specific performance and specific performance, which both courts claimed below the defendants' convictions. The identity of the contracting women was a sales record was not established on the sale, such contract I had no sanctity in the eyes of the law. That the local commissioner had either failed to satisfy himself about the identity of the persons present and was accused of implementing the contract or to inquire whether the document was executed by these persons. Through which it was implemented. That the local commissioner's report cannot be termed as manipulative because it was submitted after three months, and that where there were illiterate illiterate women involved, the dishonesty and the truth of the matter were proved. The burden was blamed on the man who charged him. The two courts did not send the fingerprints of the woman with the fingerprints for comparison to compare the fingerprint specialist, which was necessary for a fair decision on the matter, though the parties claimed. That most masculine females were dead which could not get the thumb impression of their sample, but many other
