The Section 115 Special Relief Act (of 1877), the Section 9 Amendment scope suit was based on the evidence on the record of the two courts below, and it appears that no prejudice occurred because the plaintiff was unable to convince Failure to certify, credible and conclusive evidence while defendants reluctantly denied his claim, both the courts below had properly settled the factual dispute and dealt with the matter in a naked and free manner. After the plea of mind, the victim came to a conclusion. The appellate court discussed each aspect of the matter in detail, and considered the matter in more detail, with any unlawful action by the courts under the trial court for not reading the misrepresentation and the evidence. Had no room to do it. Amendments to the facts or law recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with unless these findings have resulted in judicial jurisdiction, illegal or material misconduct, conclusions with facts in contempt of court. The High Court's jurisdiction to intervene was very limited. The law is neither permitted nor guaranteed by the High Court while in fact exercising its jurisdiction to review, as well as examining the results, for reasons supporting such conclusions and misrepresentations. Had to attend, had to look for an unreadable or obnoxious definition of evidence because of the justification for the intervention. At the same time, the appellate court, after a proper scrutiny of the evidence on file, passed reasonable decisions and orders.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
