The trial court and the appellate court, in the present case, had formally ruled in the case filed by the plaintiff's authenticity informant in the present case, which stated that he was the defendant. Is the only witness. About his statement to the court when he presented it as his testimony, according to the date and time information his son gave about the sale, but his son's appointment in that regard. It was quite silent if the plaintiff / informant's son was the only witness, as the victim sought, he should have supported the plaintiff's / his father's position, not just the student's notice and the necessary details in his / her plaintiff. Needed to prove it too. The said particulars, in the present case by the evidence mentioned, had disclosed the details in the petition and the plaintiff's own notice, but they failed to prove these facts through any corroborative evidence. In the absence of the details stated in the evidence, the mere mention of it in the notice, the plaintiff Ashid and the plaintiff were extremely inadequate; in the circumstances since the details were completely missing, the first formality of the petition was incomplete. Claim cannot be legally granted to the claimant. Such material aspects escaped completely by recording the simultaneous investigations of the following courts, and in the absence of non-compliance with the first Tolba / Tolibe, in this regard, the whole trip to different premises. What was The fact and performance of the student's eyes was unnecessary, before the burst.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
