Article 133 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), the trial court dismissed section 42 suit for the re-examination of the plaintiff's witness scope suit, but the appellant's court dismissed the appellate court's orders on the ground. done. That the appellate court erred in law by relying on the plaintiff's material witness statement as the trial court had allowed the plaintiff to re-examine, without allowing the defendant's witness to examine it. Its legal status fails to consider the relevant provisions of the Court of Appeal, Article 133 of 1984, the test taken on the statement of the plaintiff's material witness was not made with reference to a pre-cross examination, but was testified by the plaintiff. New facts were suggested on. Counsel Courtrial T ..... Even ..... Court ................ otherwise otherwise, otherwise ....... counsel counseling counsel .. counsel ... new such new facts, new facts, new facts. Suggest Suggestion Suggest Suggestions ............... The witness mentioned by the trial court, even though there was no such order on the record, said that the opposing party needed to be allowed to re-examine. The material witness was a complete failure of such re-examination of the said material witness. During the re-examination of Article 133 of the Conan Martyrs, 1984, the statement of the material witness could not be relied upon. The appellate court also did not properly evaluate the material on record and recorded the results which were against the record, the High Court rejected the order. The appellate court and the trial court's order with the amendment restored the amendment accordingly.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
