The evidence of the students under Articles 6 and 13 was dismissed by the Khattak Trial Court before the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of the student as the appeal was filed by law and the trial. The order passed by the court was also rejected by the appellate court. It was affirmed that ten days before the settlement of the suit land, the plaintiff had obtained the suit on the day of defamation. Knowledge of sales. The question was approved. The victim presented the story of a ten-day mutation, calling it the story of Maui. No notice of student disclosure was found by the plaintiff in the presence of the defendant's specific denial of receipt of the notice of notice from the plaintiff. In the extreme, it was obligatory for the plaintiff to prove the facts of the delivery of the notice. The original notice was neither presented to the court nor the process or the preparation of secondary evidence, the notice to prove the facts of the appellate court. For the postman or other witness was not presented, the trial court's finding in the circumstances was concurrently agreed and no illegal or irregularities were found in the decisions and decisions. Both courts dismiss the request for review against the aforementioned decisions and orders.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
