Articles 8, 42 and 54 of the Shahadat (10 of 1984), section 57 suit for possession, declaration and injunction restraining suit in the present case, were two separate suits and the evidence of the parties was listed in the same case and on In the second case considered, such a proceeding was certainly deemed unnecessary, but it was forbidden according to the provisions of the Constitutional Law of Martyrs, 1984 whenever there was a single issue between the parties. If there were two suits related to this, it would have been required by the trial court. Make a special order for the stability of both suits and for settling matters; and then in the absence of the parties to collect evidence in support of their own charge, the evidence of the parties was to be entered separately in both cases. And in one case, evidence was kept. In another case it could not be considered. In the subsequent case there was no recording of evidence, the parties' plea barriers were halted and in the absence of any material, the trial court lawfully positioned it to record an independent judgment, citing this position. I was not. In another case, the parties' evidence stated that the circumstances of the parties were lacking in nature and that they could not substantiate their claims. Such a disappearance floating on the surface of the record was obvious and the parties or their lawyers. They cannot be remedied by. Through their mutual agreement, the agreement was before the trial court, which would change the decision of the appellate court to remand both cases. ial Court for legal formal observation, however
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
