Section,, & pre & tion 24 The case was dismissed by the trial court and the appellate court at the same time after not submitting the pre-arrest amount, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff instructed Was supposed to deposit one-third of the amount of premature emissions. Failing to submit the same account for thirty days, the evidence on record has proved that the plaintiff was kept in the dark as well as in the Topsy Troy position because of his premature withdrawal / / of It was being sued for money laundering. For these reasons, the order to submit a third / third amount was made by the plaintiff four years after the filing by the plaintiff and the order of deposit was not specifically stated to the plaintiff, the court ruled. Was that he does not put the plaintiff in the case. It was also wrong to deny the plaintiff's appeal by the appellate court, not submitting the 1st / 3rd of the amount, which was also the result of a miscarriage of justice that in this context was not properly evaluated. ? The orders of the following courts were set aside and the plaintiff's case was restored to its original number and the plaintiff was instructed to deposit 1/3 of the amount within thirty days.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
