Failure to furnish proof of proof for the sale of Article 13 legal evidence (Article 10, 1984), Article 129 (g), the discrimination agent did not create the person who sold it under question I was aware of this. The Talib failed to produce an independent witness to prove the suit and the appeals filed by the pre-emptor were dismissed by the trial court and the lower appellate court, respectively, for the inappropriate production of the person by whom the importer knew the sale. , It can have a negative effect. It can be deduced that he would not have supported the pre-emptor; if he was presented as a witness, then the students were not established before demanding to jump through the performance of Mohibit because the profession was trusted. Failed to present evidence and was best prevented. The available evidence without explanation did not appear to the defendant nor did he present the informant, who was his original brother to prove his claim. By no independent and credible evidence, the prosecutor's assertion statement was not endorsed, therefore, the performance of the appellate arbitrator was not substantiated, the finding filed by the lower appellate court in any way Unlawful interference or material disorder was not encountered. The finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court regarding the misrepresentation or misreading of the evidence was well-argued, and was based on an accurate interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1991 and its Was refused to interfere with the modification jurisdiction on the basis. Lower Appellate
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
