Section 13 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), VI VI, R 17 Suit for occupancy by former discrimination The performance of the petitioner's jurisdiction to modify the jurisdiction of the plaintiff was that the appellate court sought to amend the plaintiff's suit. The request was not decided. At the same time, the deposed plaintiff did not mention any date for issuing a notice to the deposed person, which was not appropriate for him, nor did the plaintiff nor his student witnesses have been deposed before the court that their On the eve of the written notice of the plaintiff's student in his presence, he cited his performance of the pre-emptive profession so that in order to succeed in attaining his right to self-determination, Elabhad-e-Ishad must be proved by evidence. The true witnesses had to prove it. For the pre-discrimination case, it was not enough to send a notice of Tal and the only Talal e-publication before establishing the empire and proving that at this time, taking notice of the conspiracy, he made it known to the witnesses. Affirmed that the performance of his telepublican pre-emptor would not be able to establish his right to independence unless the propaganda in this regard was paid, so that the plaintiff applied for amendment. The case was filed to fill the lacuna that could not be allowed The plaintiff failed to perform the required students. Premature old, and was extinguished the right to terminate its rights, was not open to the intervention of the courts to seek High Court had rejected the revised conditions.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
