Articles 9 and 10 of the Special Relief Act (1877) on the offer made by the plaintiff's counsel for section 42, the suit for the decision of the plaintiff based on the special oath taken by the defendant on the Koran, the offer for the plaintiff If the defendant had made a statement on the special oath concerning the Koran, then the matter would be decided in the light of that but there was nothing in the record to show that the plaintiff's special direction to the plaintiff. Given that she is a power of attorney, there is a clause in favor of a lawyer that all the actions made by a lawyer were done by the party, but as usual In relation to the case and the lawyer was not authorized to make a decision on the basis of the case. Unless a special oath was directed to do so by the relevant party, the written action in the black and white statement on the particular oath should have been reduced and then the defendant would have been read and admitted. What was his accuracy, then his signature / thumb impression should have been obtained in a sign of correctness; the statement by the plaintiff's lawyer was not authorized because the plaintiff's statement did not contain any specific instructions from the defendant. Not complied with. The High Court allowed the trial court to make any further modification before the remand, keeping the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Oaths Act, 1873, accordingly \ r ly n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
