Cases 6 and 13 were pre-trial and the appellate court ruled simultaneously while the plaintiff was exercising his right of suit property against the defendants, so the initial responsibility was laid on the plaintiff. He should prove his superior right. In addition to the recording of his statement in addition to the pre-emption, student immunity, and legal statements of the student-accused plaintiff, five more witnesses were examined in support of their claim to the plaintiff, which in its presence was cautious and competent. Was able to present a credible witness. All legal formal customs observed are consistent with the statements of each of these statements, and defendants, despite the subject of a lengthy examination of the witnesses, are required to break their testimony or prove the defendant's claim. Not worth it. False After two courts scanned the entire evidence on record, the plaintiff got the right to a pre-emption order, however, because the defendants were able to prove some improvement in the suit property, the trial court awarded them the amount of compensation. Was found to be entitled, the claimant did not fix the sale price and the amount of the improvement, thus there was no error in this regard. In the absence of a material irregular, unlawful absence, the request for review was dismissed for the inability of the High Court to be involved in the section 115, CPC jurisdiction. Do not misread or corroborate evidence or scope errors
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
