Arts 85 (2), 102 and 103 of the suit, which includes the date of the plaintiff's father's death, suggests the preparation of a certified copy of the death report by the plaintiff that he informed the municipality that his father's death 15 4 1973 resulted in the deletion of oral evidence for the contradiction or controversy of the contents of such a report. Such report was made by an independent authority or a third party such as a medical doctor or hospital or similar. The other plaintiff did not confirm the death of the defendant through his statement. Regarding the date of his father's death, if recorded by the municipality, it cannot be considered as definitive evidence, the fact of which was to be established by suitable evidence, such as Art. 102. And 103 will not fall within the purview of the law. E-evidence, in 1984, the plaintiff stated such date of his father's death as having no contract, grant or other property matter, or in the form of a document diminished by law. Md. Azimi has stated in the statement of the plaintiff's institution 14 years after his death and in the anti-test suit that he did not remember the date of his father's death, who died suddenly and was not ill before his death. Such a report shows that the plaintiff's father was ill before his death, tuberculosis is a disease which never causes a human being to die suddenly, in the plaintiff's own evidence in several material cases, Contradictions with. Under the circumstances, no credibility can be attached to such a report. The principle les r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
