Article 12 Law evidence (10 of 1984), Article 76 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application to display a photostat copy of the contract to sell the plaintiff's request for the specific performance of the contract to sell the case. The dismissed evidence is that the appellant / defendant of the appellant's Court of Appeal accepted that the appeal was not entertainable by the Additional District Judge because the order of the trial court was not admissible and the petitioner / plaintiff filed a review instead of appeal. Should the plaintiff claim that the order of the Additional District Judge was nullified, therefore, the constitutional duress UST may be welcome to some extent will be limited or will not be any kind of treatment at any time revoke the order. The Additional District Judge allowed the sale of the contract exhibit as secondary evidence to be true when the original document was lost or destroyed; secondary evidence could be presented under Article 76 by the plaintiff of the 1984 law. Explained that the reason for seeking permission to present the secondary evidence was that the original document was stolen The plaintiff / respondent was correct in filing an appeal before the Additional District Judge as the trial court dealt with three applications by a single order. Were given. Appellant / Plaintiff was thoroughly appalled at the appeal by the plaintiff Two-year delay in filing the constitutional petition shows that the applicant was guilty. The law helped the watchman, and not the least. There can be no objection to the exhibit of the sale agreement because the constitutional duress at the time of the final argument in the civil suit that is still pending.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
