The trial court dismissed the case for Articles 6 and 13, dismissing the claim on the basis that the defendants did not meet the requirements of the students in accordance with the law, an appeal filed by the trial court against the decision of the trial. Was excluded by The plaintiff's performance of the students examined two witnesses, but their statements contained material discrepancies whose date was related to the sale transaction, and Talal's performance and both statements also showed that the defendant was a witness. This contradicts the fact that the search was paid. After a six-day performance of student probation, when a witness in one of his cross-examination stated that the sale was made the next day to obtain knowledge of the transaction, evidence on record does not show that the immediate As you gain sales knowledge. The plaintiff in the case had stated his intention to stop the sale and then paid the plaintiff as per the provisions of section 13 (3) of the North West Frontier Province Pre-Emission Act, 1987, the courts below, Due to the proper definition, appropriate intervention cannot be made, under appropriate judicial decision. In review by the High Court
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
