Making the case for sections emp 6 and 13, which claimed the highest right to the affidavit before Shafi Jar and Shafi'i Khalil were pre-stated, they stated that on 4 12 1997, at 0 200 p.m. Knowledge of sales in questions. The Hazara witness, through a witness, said that he had expressed his intention about the sale before, and that in his own investigation, the plaintiff and Mohit Saeed testified that they had acquired the knowledge of the sale on 18 11 1997, the plaintiff. Such a statement of a very important witness presented by; without leaving anything under the circumstances made it clear that it cannot be doubted that it was in 18 11 1997 and not in 4 1997 1997 when the plaintiff received knowledge. Immediately upon request; if the claim of claim of the petitioner is filed; fall to the ground, in addition, within two weeks of making the plaintiff `seeking 'malpractice, student Ish Ashid. was required to make, but he preached on 12 12 1997, the date of which he claimed that Talib, who in any case did not come within two weeks of 18 11 1997, was on trial. While deciding the plaintiff's case. The Chief of Witness read the test, but was reluctant to consider his cross-examination. Similarly, the appellate court neither examined the evidence nor the senior judicial despite being the last court of facts. Recorded such procedures and disposals by the officer. Violation of the law dismissing the first appeal could hardly be said as a judicial settlement because the plaintiff did not pay the initial two solicitations and injunctions according to the law, which led to his Sue
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
