O XVII, R 3 The plaintiff alleges the removal of evidence of malicious prosecution damages was maliciously sued by the court for litigation and recovery of damages of Rs. 50,000,000 by the plaintiff. Due to the failure to present evidence, the legal position was to prefer the appeal against the plaintiff on the trial court's decision and ruling before the High Court but he preferred the appeal before the Adel District Judge when the case was filed for the purpose of legal jurisdiction. The value of Rs. Ai's order was dismissed and he preferred the appeal before the High Court on 12-12 2012, after his appeal was dismissed / returned due to lack of jurisdiction for which counsel was barred. Was. Plaintiff could not reasonably and justify why the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the Adel District Judge knowing the fact that he had not received any notice. Due to no legal jurisdiction over Rs. 10,000, the hearing of the decision and the decision to disclose the decision were dismissed by the Additional District Judge rightfully due to lack of jurisdiction.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
