Article 13 Legal evidence (10 of 1984), Article 129 (G) Pool First Competition, The performance of the information of the accused plaintiff was filed earlier which was rejected simultaneously which caused the plaintiff applicant his Unable to explain why the informant and another were not presented in the evidence, there is no doubt that two witnesses were called to testify, but the pre-emptor did not have the authority to call in the affidavit. Discard any witnesses, including the person present at the time of the performance and the informant at the time of the person's non-appearance. The pre-emptor's knowledge of the sale may have led to the negative opinion that he may not have supported the pre-emptor, if presented as a witness, and it could be concluded that the informant No jumping demand was established due to failure to remove. Calling the court, in the present case, it was alleged that in the presence of witnesses, their number had grown to four, with the informant being confused, without any explanation, the name of the informant, who was a necessary predecessor. And was the most important witness, yet, it could not be examined under Article I29 (G) of the 1984 Convention, a negative indication should be drawn against the plaintiff that the informant may have foreseen Unsupported, if presented as a witness, stated under the law, it was the duty of the plaintiff applicant on the date on which he obtained this information Be sure. A council, in which they demanded information from the informant and presented evidence in accordance with its requests, so that the students could prove the facts of the case.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
