Variations in the Judicial Woman Identity Judgment of Section 42 Title The plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of the suit land and that the trial court has modified the sale because of these individuals as a result of fraud and cohabitation. The case was dismissed but the appellate court allowed the appeal and the statements of two legal witnesses and one defense witness, the trial court was ordered in favor of the plaintiffs, while approving the change of questions to the limber or local councilor. The story of the existence of was denied, the defendant was not asked to identify any close relationship At the time the certiorari confirmed the change to identify the vendors, the defendants' position was confirmed by the duplication of the changes in the question allegedly received a sale consideration payment and the defendant received Ali stated that the sale was given full attention at the time of acceptance of the replacement but the mutation proved otherwise the mutation mentioned that it was approved without any indication that the payment was made at the time of approval of payment. The defendant's witness did not appear in the witness box to state that he was at the time of confirming the variation in question. In the presence of payment was made on the matter, the defendant neither presented the person nor the Government of Pratt nor admitted that the newspaper was not available in the absence of the relevant Revenue Department's mother record. The authenticity and truth were not established, the lower appellate court's decision found no precedent for misrepresentation or reading of evidence. And any kind of non-rule
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
