Section 13 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), Section 100 and O XVIII R 17 of the Contempt of Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 129 (g) for the absence of the Appellant (Plaintiff) 's presence for possession by pre-arrest. As a result of effective performance, the student motions filed two independent cases, which were dismissed, followed by the appellant's two separate appeals and at the same time maintaining his destiny that the trial was held. 'S court did not comply with the provisions of the law. 7th XVIII, R 17, CPC and record the evidence in one case and in other words the respondents (the defendants) submitted that the appellant did not appear before the trial court and thereby chose to represent him. has been. An attorney, executed by a special power of attorney, who was executed on 9-12 2005, means that the appellant cannot be represented by the lawyer mentioned at the time when he is allegedly required to file the torture. 4 was conducted in 2002, therefore, the aforesaid attorney was not even authorized to testify as a ruler. The requirements required should be assigned before they can be presented to the court regarding the performance of the solicitor by requesting the ability of their lawyer. The prospect was the person who made such demands, but in the present case, despite the availability of such evidence for best known reasons for the appellant and under Article 129 (g) of Canaan testimony 1984 Paused. The following courts had rightly brought attention to the appellant, who had himself tried the case.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
