Article 13 Legislative Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 129 (g) Proof of Conduct Written on the Offer of the Case Assumption by Advocate Scope Without Reasonable Reason for Absence of Prior Umpire Without Reasonable Reason The defendant's (appellant's) contradictory evidence was that the plea agreement could not be proved in accordance with the law because the prosecution had not personally appeared, nor was there any reason for his absence. Was. The fact that Mu Qati Motibat was a personal ruler of the former empire and could not be proved by a special counsel because it was said that the authenticity of the call could only be investigated if the umpire himself was present. Source representation was chosen. The attorney, but neither the lawyer nor the witness gave any reason why the former emperor did not appear. In his examination, the attorney stated that the pre-emptor was his sister-in-law and resided with her, but did not give any reason why he did not want to present himself as a special powers attorney. It indicated that he was not even authorized by the prosecution as a witness. Reasonable reasons for not appearing, which led to the present case being dropped, the High Court decided in favor of the pre-emptor the pre-emption suit on the ground that it could not. The emperor authorized the lawyer in the tehsil court premises, and if he could appear there, the question was whether he should go to trial before the trial. From being present or your own
