Sections 6 and 13 were dismissed prematurely by the trial and the appellate court dismissed the petition for injunction, the plaintiff did not immediately and on occasion, had neither the date, the month nor the year in the field of knowledge. It was alleged, so much so that the informant's name was not mentioned, allegedly had to mention the ingredients to prove the date of performance of the student e-mail student notice. Twice, the plaintiff did not prove, in these circumstances, the two courts were not properly fitted underneath, the two courts sought a unity of facts against the plaintiff, which was not open to interference by the High Court. That serious injustice or substance did not prove to be an illegal record, which was missing in this case, that it could not interfere with the coherent results of the facts recorded by the two courts below.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
