ABDUL LATIF ALIAS MUHAMMAD LATIF ALIAS BABU versus DIL MIR
The plaintiff's request for a plea in the Section 13 Pre-Emissions Suite Toll, 29 8 1996, was the performance of the cell by certifying that it made such an interpretation on 11 9 1996, when it was found in the evening at her home \ A by Sold by source. (Candle), where he made such a connection even in the presence of \ h of, then went to Patwari to obtain a copy of all the mutations which were delivered to the plaintiff the next day. All of this went to the defendant and the plaintiff's unsuccessful application for transfer of the suit, resulting in the notice of the applicant being issued when he testified to the plaintiff during the multiple examination for 10/11 O-Hours. Recall that when he went to A's house, who said that the plaintiff visited his house 12 hours later after witness HH his that the plaintiff's visit was twelve hours, but during the investigation it is stated that He cannot remember the exact time of the plaintiff's visit. Such witnesses were recorded after the incident occurred 1/1 / year. Such witnesses cannot be expected to note the exact time of the plaintiff's visit or in the court Times for the plaintiff and his witnesses. The evidence mentioned is listed somewhere for the preparation of evidence. It would be considered an ambiguous term to refer to the word \ evening pla \ instead of midnight, as the time varies according to the individual's perception of the difference between the times stated by such witnesses naturally and in support of their truth. One factor would be, the suit was decided in the circumstances \ r \ n
