Acquiring student services was a prerequisite for eliminating sections 6 and 13, and if its performance was not proven beyond any doubt as well as fixed, the entire structure would collapse. In the present case, a witness was presented to prove that it was proved that the notice was given to the students, while according to the Conan testimony, two witnesses were to be produced in 1984, He termed it as a matter of non-performance of students. The original spirit of Section 13 (3) of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991 records also discloses that the notice of the applicant was not given by the Preparator himself, but by a lawyer, who was given by the Pre-Importer. Options were not given. It was empowered to issue such notice that a witness presented by the pre-emptor did not exclude in clear terms that the pre-emptor had presented the victim immediately in the same meeting. In the exercise of its jurisdiction over the evidence available on record, which was sufficient to interfere with the High Court, numerous concurrent decisions and the orders of the courts below were set aside and the case dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
