Section 13 Defamation, Requirement Plaintiff's performance was not presented to the court who allegedly told her of the controversial sale because there was no reason why she said the witness could not be presented, in which case the defendant Expressed his intention to make this statement blank. In order to establish the right to self-determination it was necessary to present a sale transaction before the non-production of the informant, who was also a minor witness to the notice of Tal Ashad, would have been fatal for the exercise of the right to self-determination. Is to set performance. The settlement was not enough without independent embroidery The plaintiff was fully specialized in the sale of the suit land prior to the alleged date of the suit. The plaintiff did not meet the requirements of section 13 of the KP Pre-Empty Act 1987 in proving the demand sought. The appellate court was based on a false and unlawful definition of evidence and the performance of the law, a writ petition was granted and the appellate court's decision was rejected and the trial court's decision upheld.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
