The trial court dismissed the case filed by the plaintiffs for making the provisions of Articles 6 and 13, but the appellate court rejected the trial court's decision by requiring the plaintiff to mention the timely details in his examination. The line om was omitted. The witnesses who made the date, the place and the students in the press and just mentioned the name of the student reporting the name were silent on the occasion with the informant from whom the plaintiff was told about the sale on the telephone. The witness testimony question did not even mention the first formal implementation of the interrogation by the plaintiff, nor did he provide the required details in his examination at the Chief Pre-emptor, and not only in the plaintiff's. The required particulars were required to be given, but it was also required to prove the above details through his evidence, but the plaintiff failed in his first formal position. I was in history when the notice of counsel was written and intended by the plaintiff. No lawyer record was in the record in the name of the lawyer, which means that in this date neither lawyer was given the option to write the letter nor the lawyer was given the option to advise. So what was done by the plaintiff was without authorization and as such, in the absence of any evidence cannot be substantially verified and the order recorded by the appellate court was summarized by the appellate court. Was based on summary and estimates. And the trial court's decision
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
