Sections 13 and 5 of the Students' Press and Demands E-Assad Jumping Demand, Proof of Suit for Advancement of Trial (Trial Court) The trial court ruled, but dismissed by the appellate court to prove the demand for leniency, It was necessary for the plaintiffs to undoubtedly prove the date and location of the information about the unsold sale and then to prove any delayed demand between knowing and making the unknown sale. The demand was not proved on time and plate by clear and compelling evidence, the Tibet was not convinced that there was no mention of knowledge and demand and so on the alleged notice of the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff. Were also the plaintiffs. Could not claim that the students were proved according to the law, the delivery of the notice was not proved and the postman was not presented as a witness when the notice of Talab-e-Assad was received by the defendants. Proof of this, the delivery of the notice was required only as a plaintiff appeared without the authority of the lawyer of the other as a witness, which was a fatal defect, each of the defendants had to prove their claim by appearing as a witness. Or at least something not found in the appellate court results by a qualified lawyer, review revoked
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
